Trends in social inequality in self-reported health in the Netherlands; does infant mortality in year of birth as a cohort indicator matter?
In this article, we study trends in self-reported health (general health and chronic conditions) and health inequality in the Netherlands between 1974 and 1998 using an age-period-cohort framework. We answer two questions: (1) to what extent can trends in self-reported health be explained by the current macro-context (period effect) and by infant mortality in year of birth (cohort effect)? And (2) do the effects of period and cohort differ for educational groups? Health indicators are self-reported poor health and chronic conditions. The use of 26 Dutch cross-sectional surveys makes it possible to estimate largely unbiased effects of period and cohort simultaneously (controlled for age effects) and thus to adequately describe trends in social inequality in health. Our results give rise to four conclusions. First, for men poor health has been more or less stable, for women there has been an increase. The prevalence of chronic conditions has increased for both sexes. Second, adding cohort specific experiences to a model including age and period effects is only relevant for women's poor health. Decreasing infant mortality in year of birth leads to better health and consequently the period effect initially found for women appears to be slightly underestimated. Third, we found no trends in social inequalities in self-reported health due to period effects. Fourth, our analyses do show socially unequal trends in health as a result of cohort specific experiences. Contrary to our hypothesis, we found that decreased infant mortality in year of birth makes for a stronger impact of educational differences on self-reported poor health. Concerning chronic conditions no trends for educational groups were found.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
Issue (Month): 5 (March)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:5:p:987-1000. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.