IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v18y1984i11p909-917.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The social distribution of illness: Is Australia more equal?

Author

Listed:
  • Broom, Dorothy H.

Abstract

The relationship between socioeconomic status and ill health has challenged researchers and health practitioners for many years. This paper outlines the way several basic measures of morbidity are related to occupation, income and education, with brief attention to class gradients in mortality and service utilization. The international literature contains many studies showing an inverse gradient in health by social standing: people who are socially and economically well off typically enjoy good health as well. Data from a recent health survey conducted in New South Wales, Australia do not confirm the British findings when occupational categories are studied, but when other measures of status are substituted for the crude occupation categories, a number of patterns appear. Income is significantly associated with the probability of chronic illness among middle-aged men and women, and among women over 65. The predicted pattern is also evident for recent illness among young men and for consulting among elderly respondents, but these associations are not statistically significant. Except among the elderly, better educated men and women are healthier than those with less education on most morbidity measures. The parallels and discrepancies between these findings from an Australian sample and overseas studies raise important research and policy questions.

Suggested Citation

  • Broom, Dorothy H., 1984. "The social distribution of illness: Is Australia more equal?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 18(11), pages 909-917, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:18:y:1984:i:11:p:909-917
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(84)90261-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:18:y:1984:i:11:p:909-917. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.