IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v54y2002i1p65-77.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Metropolitan area income inequality and self-rated health--a multi-level study

Author

Listed:
  • Blakely, Tony A.
  • Lochner, Kimberly
  • Kawachi, Ichiro

Abstract

We examined the association of income inequality measured at the metropolitan area (MA) and county levels with individual self-rated health. Individual-level data were drawn from 259,762 respondents to the March Current Population Survey in 1996 and 1998. Income inequality and average income were calculated from 1990 census data, the former using Gini coefficients. Multi-level logistic regression models were used. Controlling for sex, age, race, and individual-level household income, respondents living in high, medium-high, and medium-low income inequality MAs had odds ratios of fair/poor self-rated health of 1.20 (95% confidence interval 1.04-1.38), 1.07 (0.95-1.21), and 1.02 (0.91-1.15), respectively, compared to people living in the MAs with the lowest income inequality. However, we found only a small association of MA-level income inequality with fair/poor health when controlling further for average MA household income: odds ratios were 1.10 (0.95-1.28), 1.01 (0.89-1.14), and 1.00 (0.89-1.12), respectively. Likewise, we found only a small association of county-level income inequality with self-rated health--although only 40.7% of the sample had an identified county on CPS data. Regarding the association of state-level income inequality with fair/poor health, we found the association to be considerably stronger among non-metropolitan (i.e. rural) compared to metropolitan residents.

Suggested Citation

  • Blakely, Tony A. & Lochner, Kimberly & Kawachi, Ichiro, 2002. "Metropolitan area income inequality and self-rated health--a multi-level study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 65-77, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:54:y:2002:i:1:p:65-77
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(01)00007-7
    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.

    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:54:y:2002:i:1:p:65-77. 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.