Advancing Health Equity: A Paradigm Shift in Health Research?
The first wave of contemporary health research focused on medicine and the life sciences, with clinical solutions as a primary endpoint. Although such research remains foundational, understanding the social origins of disease—the ‘‘upstream’’ influences on (ill) health and its distribu- tion [6]—generally and almost unavoid- ably falls outside the biomedical frame of
reference. The past few decades have seen
the emergence of a second wave of health research, providing the evidence base for a variety of interventions directed at im- proving the health of populations rather than individuals, with a large component addressing non-communicable diseases.
The work of CSDH underscores the need for more research on how social, political, and economic processes influence health inequities. We consider this grow- ing field of enquiry [7,8] as a paradigm shift and a third, complementary, wave of health research. The new paradigm makes explicit that health systems and the people who use them exist within a social context that can powerfully determine peoples’ chances to be healthy not only through access to health services, but also through access to a range of other resources, opportunities, and rights: the social deter- minants of health. Doing research from this perspective involves re-emphasis of older public health traditions and a push for innovative thinking that incorporates a number of distinct strategies and method- ologies (Box 1).
Research Priorities
Using this frame, we recommend an agenda for research on health equity organized around four distinct yet inter- related areas:
(1) Global Factors and Processes
That Affect Health Equity
‘‘Global health has come to occupy a new and different kind of political space that demands the study of population health in the context of power relations in a world system’’ [9]. Numerous globa processes affect social determinants of
health [10]. Global re-organization of production has involved the emergence of an increasingly feminized and informa- lized global labour market with adverse effects on women’s health and their social protection and increases in child labor. Trade liberalization has led to losses of livelihood, sometimes large revenue short- falls for low- and middle-income countries, increasing privatization of public services such as water, and reduced access to essential medicines. The hyper-mobility of capital has also constrained social policy, as jurisdictions compete for invest- ment, and exposed national economies to the destabilizing effects of disinvestment and financial crises.
It is necessary to improve the evidence base about globalization, not only negative effects, but also positive impacts: for example, expanded social and economic opportunities for women despite harsh working conditions [11]. Comparative cross-national research should be comple- mented by detailed national case studies that connect household-level impacts with national policies and global forces. Simi- larly, research on how to redesign institu- tions for global decision-making—often referred to as ‘‘global governance’’—is needed so that these institutions address not only trade and economic crises, but other global issues, such as climate change, that have important social and health consequences. The financial crisis of
2008 only underscored this urgency [12]. Globalization is implicated, as well, in many health risks associated with environ- mental hazards [13]. Potential natural limitations of support for the human species have been widely discussed in
recent environmental health fora: our current global trajectories of unsustainable development are important areas for future research.
Rapid urbanization in the developing world is closely connected to globalization: a turning point was reached early in this century, when for the first time a majority of the world’s population lived in cities. It is estimated that 1.4 billion people will live in slums in 2020 in the absence of rapid and effective policy interventions [14], creating formidable challenges for reduc- ing health inequities in low- and middle- income countries [15]. Pertinent questions include how global-scale processes lead to social changes that are beyond the reach of local or metropolitan government policies and interventions. Conversely, the emergence of metropolitan areas as global-scale economic actors in their own right potentially offers a new frame of
reference for initiatives to reduce health inequities.
Research on globalization and health clearly covers many topics. Building on existing international frameworks and efforts at global health diplomacy, we suggest asking, for example, how the international human rights law framework and recent changes in donor policy, as contained within the Paris Declaration, can shape development assistance and better advance health equity.
2) Structures and Processes That Differentially Affect People’s Chances to Be Healthy
The social environment in which we
live generates unequal distributions of power, wealth, exposures and vulnerabil- ities to illness. What are the interactions between the axes of social differentiation and how do these contribute to the patterning of inequity at population level [16]? What is the full range of public policies that affect determinants of health like employment relationships and condi- tions [17] or the operation of gender norms [18]? More specifically, how do economic status, ethnicity, and gender intersect to shape health risks and out- comes? For example, the determinants and consequences of limited to no access to health services often vary by both the gender and class location of sick individ- uals and their households: research only analyzing class markers can be misleading, as differences across classes can be misin- terpreted without gender analysis [19]. How are these intersections affected by the interaction of economic and social poli- cies? Such interactions and their effects
frequently begin in early childhood and
continue across the life course [20,21]. Against this background, coordinated
and urgent efforts are needed to shift
research from single risk factor analysis to more comprehensive perspectives. The single risk factor approach fails to uncover multi-causal mechanisms and root causes behind health disparities, and is likely to overlook the accumulation of influences on health over the life course or across generations. The life-course perspective, in turn, requires fundamental rethinking of both research priorities and policy and practice to reflect what is already known about, for example, how material deprivation and stresses associated with subordinate or marginal- ized social status ‘‘cluster cross-sectionally and accumulate longitudinally’’ [22] and about the underlying biological mecha- nisms [20,23]. Nevertheless, it is essential not to lose sight of the importance of acting on what is already known [24,25]. For example, the links between health and opportunities for productive and fulfilling social activities require integrating occupa- tional health with a broader social analysis. Systems, institutions, and financing mechanisms for social protection vary widely in their comprehensiveness and in
the stages of the life course involved, for example, support for reducing child pov- erty, unemployment or old-age pensions. Research has been concentrated on high- income countries where the proportion of the working population in the formal labor market is relatively high and coverage of social protection widespread [26,27,28]. Even in such countries, much remains to be learnt about how variations in systems of social provision, for example eligibility based on contributions versus universal approaches, operate to influence health. Another important dimension to investi- gate is the distribution of benefits from public services and their financing sources. In simplest terms, do public expenditures primarily benefit the poor or marginal- ized, or is their distribution regressive, with the poor disproportionally paying out more than they receive? Understanding the cumulative effects of social protection systems over the life course in a variety of contexts remains important, particularly low- and middle-income countries where systems of social protection are highly diverse and approaches to generate funds remain limited. All countries should mon- itor and evaluate the gendered health impacts of privatization of social security and pension reform.