An Analysis of the Social Gradient of Health in Relation Essay

An Analysis of the Social side of Health in Relation to the Australian indigenous population The inference of a affectionate incline of heartyness predicts that reducing inequality itself has health benefits for all, not simply for the imp everywhereished or deprived minorities within populations. (Devitt, house & Tsey 2001) The above quote from Devitt, Hall and Tseys paper is a relatively well grounded and well researched statement which draws on contemporary theoretic sociological concepts to support the assertion that reducing inequality is the key to improve health for all.However the assertion that the demonstration of a social gradient of health predicts that a reduction in inequality provide authorise to health benefits for all is a rather broad statement and requires side by side(predicate) examination. The intention of this essay is to examine the social gradient of health, whose existence has been well established by the Whitehall Studies (Marmot 1991), and, by focusing on those groups at the rase end of the social gradient, determine whether initiatives to address inequalities amongst social classes will lead to health benefits for those classes at the lower end of the social scale.The effectiveness of past initiatives to address these social and health inequalities will be examined and recommendations make as to how these initiatives might be more effective. The social gradient depict by Marmot and others is interrelated with a variety of environmental, sociopolitical and socio economical factors which have been set as key determinants of health. These determinants interact with each other at a very complex level to impact directly and indirectly on the health status of individuals and groups at all levels of society Poor social and economic circumstances affect health throughout life.People march on down the social ladder usually run at least twice the risk of serious illness and premature death of those scraggy the top. Betwe en the top and bottom health standards show a relentless social gradient. (Wilkinson & Marmot 1998) In Australian society it is readily plain that the lower social classes be at greater disadvantage than those in the upper echelons of society this has been discussed at length in several break up papers on the social gradient of health and its set up on disadvantaged Australian groups (Devitt, Hall & Tsey 2001, Robinson 2002, Caldwell & Caldwell 1995).Within the linguistic context of the social gradient of health it can be inferred that Indigenous groups, for example, are particularly susceptible to ill health and poor health outcomes as they suffer inordinately from the negative effects of the key determinants of health. A dewy-eyed example of this is the inequality in distribution of economic resources Average Indigenous household income is 38% less than that of non-Indigenous households. (AHREOC 2004). The stress and anxiety caused by scrimpy economic resources leads to increased risk of depression, hypertension and heart disease (Brunner 1997 cited in Henry 2001).Higher social status and greater access to economic resources is concomitant with a reduction in stress and anxiety levels, as individuals in these groups have more maintain over economic pressures which fabricate this stress. This simple comparison proves that the social gradient of health accurately reflects how socioeconomic determinants affect the health of particularized social classes at the physiological level. An cite of the research into the social gradient and the determinants of health is the examination of the pathways through which specific social groups experience and respond to these determinants.These psychosocial pathways incorporate psychological, behavioural and environmental constraints and are closely linked to the determinants of health Many of the socio-economic determinants of health have their effects through psychosocial pathways. (Wilkinson 2001 ci ted in Robinson 2002). These pathways have been demonstrated by Henry (2001) in the conceptual model of resource influences (Appendix A), a model which illustrates the interaction in the midst of the constraints mentioned above and their impact on health outcomes.Henry states that a important differentiator between classes is the amount of control an individual feels they have over their environment. Whereas an individual from a lower class group holds a limited sense of control over their well being and consequently adopts a fatalistic approach to health, those in higher classes with a stronger sense of control over their health are more likely to take proactive steps in ensuring their future wellbeing.This means that both individuals will consider differently with the same health problem. This is partly as a dissolving agent of socioeconomic or environmental determinants relative to their situation, but it is also a result of behavioural/physical constraints and, most importa ntly, the modes of thought employed in rationalising their situation and actions. In essence these psychosocial pathways occupy an intermediate role between the social determinants of health and class related health behaviours.