Health Statistical Quarterly, the Health Statistical Quarterly has more In-depth information on health issues. All these publications which are available online and as a hard copy give a wide range of statistics on birth and death rates, infant mortality which is the number of deaths that occur to children under the age of one according to 1000 lives and the suicide rates. It also provides appointments at Gaps surgeries and hospital admissions and these are often studied by gender, social class, age and geographical location. The second source is ‘charitable organizations and pressure groups’.
Many charitable and special interest groups also collect and publish statistical and other Information which lets people know the discussion on issues of health and illness. For example, Youngish www. Youngish. Org. Cabana Mind www. Mind. Org. UK are charities that support individuals and young people who have mental health needs and WV. Disability. Co. UK is a website that gives a disabled related service on the Internet that gives news on disability related Issues. They all provide up to date and ongoing information related to their areas of concern. The third source is ‘Academic Researchers and other Authors’.
This is largely based on universities, researchers and authors that contribute to evidences and that debate on a wide range of health and social care Issues. Government Statistics Includes mortality rates which Is the number of people who have died In the population in a given year. It is measured as the number of deaths a year per 1000 of the population. It also includes morbidity rates which refer to a number of people who have a particular Illness during a given period which Is normally a year. These trends will be compared over a period of time. Specific morbidity rates may be assured in terms of prevalence of a disease.
Disease prevalence is the total number of cases of a specific disease in a population during a specific period of time. ‘OFF population during a specified period of time. Mortality rates, especially the infant mortality rate are often used as an indicator of the health and well-being of the population as a whole. If they are high are increasing rapidly in a certain location or a particular social group compared to others. This is seen as a sign that levels of general health and well-being may be declining in those groups and the causes may e the social and economic environment, for example, levels of poverty and economic hardships.
Mortality rates are collected from the official and required registration of deaths and the causes of death from the legally required death certificates. Information on morbidity is drawn from a wide range of sources including GAP and hospital appointments, hospital admissions and registration of noticeable diseases. There have also been more general studies showing levels of ill-health. The studies are not related to a specific condition; however they use self-reported measures of health. People have been asked how healthy they feel on a scale from one to ten.
Official statistics have to be treated with caution, there is a lot of evidence that health, ill-health and life expectancy vary according to social groups and especially social classes. People of the higher social class are expected to have a longer life expectancy compared to the lower social groups. The black report and the Achaeans report are both modern studies that show the reasons of these differences. They give detailed and comprehensive explanations of the relationships between social and environmental factors and health, life expectancy and illness.
The black report exposed the vast differences in health and illness between the two social classes. It considered four types of explanation that might be the reasons of the level of illness and life expectancy in the social classes. The researches were persuaded that the differences in health and well-being depended on the level of everyone’s incomes, the quality of their housing and the environment in which they live in and work in. The first explanation is ‘The Statistical artifact explanation’. This is when the researchers suggested that the differences could be said by the fact that the tactics in themselves produced a biased picture.
They stated that the people in the lowest social classes had higher proportions of older people and people that worked in a traditional and more dangerous industry; so therefore, it suggests that they would have a higher rate of illness than the more affluent, younger people working in an office, call centre and other service industries. This suggests that it’s not the social class instead it’s the age structure and patterns of employment of people in the lower social class, however, researches now show that when the researchers count for this bias in employment and age.
They still find a connection between low social class and the high rates of illness and the lower life expectancy. The second explanation is the ‘Natural or Social Selection’. This explains that it is not the lower social class and associated low wages, poverty and poorer housing that are the cause of illness, higher infant mortality rates and lower life expectancy for adults. In fact the people who are in the lower class, because of their poor condition, absenteeism and lack of energy that one needs to get success and a promotion. This health is caused by the deprived circumstances.
The third explanation is ‘Cultural or Behavioral explanations’. This focuses on the behavior and lifestyle choices of people in the lower social classes. There was evidence that people who were in the poor society smoked more and drank more heavily. They tend to eat more fatty foods and not do enough exercise. Their poor lifestyle choices were linked to a range of chronic illness including heart disease, some forms of cancer, bronchitis and diabetes. On the other hand, people who live like that smoke and drink to forget the act that they live in a deprived space. The final explanation is ‘Material or Structural explanations’.
This claims that those social groups for whom life expectancy is shorter and for whom infant mortality rates are higher is because of the inequalities in wealth and income. Poverty and persistently low incomes are linked to poor diets, poor housing in a poor area. It is these inequalities and the associated deprivation that lead to the differences in health and well-being. An explanation that can be traced back to the work of Marx. Marxist tend to see society as operating in the interests of the rich and powerful. The bourgeoisie have a better life as they have more money, so therefore they’re not ill and they have a longer life expectancy.
Whereas they see the ones with less money as not being able to afford the good treatment and having a short life expectancy. The writers of the black report presented a very persuasive evidence to support the materialist explanation. Shaw et al 919990 completed a major review of all the research in this area and came to a conclusion that the major factors that were part of these differences in health and illness were social factors. Simply put poverty into a society and it shortens their life expectancy and increases the rates of illness. The next social grouping is gender and patterns of health and illness.
Although women’s life expectancies is higher than males, females usually tend to live five years more than males, and the infant mortality rate is higher for boys compared to girls. Studies constantly say that there is a higher rate of illness for women than men. The social factors that contribute to the differences are known as; risk factors, economic inequalities and the impact of the female role, especially in the family. Risk factors describe that the higher death rates for men can be related to the higher levels of cigarettes smoked and the drinks consumed by men and the participation of risky sports and activities they do.
There is a relatively high rate of death of men between the age of 17 and 24. This is specifically linked to the risk taking and the deaths linked to road accidents. Economic inequalities suggest that no matter the changes that happen in law, women still earn less than men. In recent surveys by the higher education statistics agency, women who have degrees get paid less than men on average. Men earn up to IOW more than females. Men are much more likely to get into higher paid Jobs with forty percent men earning over EYE,OHO a year compared with 26% of women three years after graduating.
A higher proportion of women are in low paid part time work. They are more likely to be the career of a child as a single parent and are more likely to be on means-tested state benefits. In the future they have more of a chance of living in poverty as they will not have much pension and because of family may not have a full state pension. The impact of the female role is when women take the susceptibilities for the housework in most homes. The higher incidence of and Barley (1989) studied the hours spent on housework in 1700 houses in London.
They found out that women tend to spend up to 87 hours per week on domestic labor. Women with children spend up to 64 hours per week even if they have a full time Job. Most of the times a woman will be managing on a limited budget, working long hours, and they will have little time for themselves. All the same, it could also be that the higher rated of diagnosed stress-related illness for women are due to them aligning to doctors rather than having a higher rate of stress related illnesses. The statistical artifacts suggest that it’s the pattern of work and age that has an impact on one’s life expectancy and illness.
This is an advantage because the poor people understand the importance of life and the hardships they have to go through to get money and how to provide for the family. It shows a true picture of health as it suggests that poor people who work more have a higher level of illness and a shorter life expectancy. Which compared to statistics is right as poor people don’t have enough money so they work and can’t get a good treatment. The Black Report and the Achaeans Report, they argued that the link between health inequalities and health to be linked to the lower social classes.
This could be biased as the study was based on older people, traditional and more dangerous industries, so the results would be expected to show higher levels of illness. This explanation suggests that it is not really social class but age structure and patterns of employment of people in the lowest social classes that really explain the differences. The natural or social election explanation states that it is not low social class, low wages, poverty and poorer housing which cause ill health, but that it is that people are in the lower social classes because of their health, absenteeism and lack of energy needed to succeed in society.
This idea has been rejected by sociologists because it doesn’t really give a true picture of how social classes can cause illness and have a shorter life expectancy. The advantages of this is that it sees as both the rich and poor needing to do some sort of exercise to be healthy, on the other hand the disadvantages are hat it doesn’t consider the social classes and suggests that the life expectancy and illness isn’t based on the amount of money someone has, it rather is based on the energy and the absenteeism. Cultural or behavioral explanations focus on the behavior and the lifestyle of individuals of the lower class.
There’s evidence that is linked to the lifestyle choices that one has such as smoking, lack of exercise and poor diet to chronic illness that includes, heart diseases and cancer, it could also include bronchitis and diabetes. It shows a fair picture of the social classes as the people tit less money tend to use smoking and drinking as a way of coping with their difficult living positions. The strengths of this is that it shows the fact that the poor get illnesses due to their ways of dealing with problems, however, the weaknesses are that it doesn’t show what the rich people do and why they have a higher life expectancy.
The material or structural explanation explains that lower life expectancy, illness, poorer long term health and infant mortality rates being linked to inequalities in wealth and income. It suggests that if you put poverty in a society they ill have a poor health and a shorter life expectancy. This is an advantage as it shows a fair picture of the fact that the lower social class will have less money therefore will not be able to have treatment as the rich. The disadvantage is that the rich people and everything.
The risk factors suggest that the death linked to men can be because they smoke more and drink more. Moreover it can be because of the activities and risks they take. This is an advantage as the social grouping is gender and patterns of health and illness, because it shows that male have a shorter life expectancy because f the risky activities between the ages of 17-24. However, the fact that it doesn’t include women is a disadvantage as some women also do the same activities as males and smoke/drink but they still live longer, which is false and should be stated in this.
The economic equalities, this explanation suggests that no matter what changes that come into law women get paid less than men. This is an advantage as males are usually the ones who go to work and the females are the ones who stay at home so therefore, if men get into workplaces faster than they can have a perfect traditional working home. The disadvantage is that women still get treated unfairly and the fact that they won’t have enough money for when they’re old may mean that they couldn’t get treated to become better.
This shows a fair picture of the fact that gender effect’s the health of women as they don’t have enough money when they’re older. More over another disadvantage is that women tend to have a higher life expectancy, however it’s stated as the women will die before men as they don’t have money for treatments. The impact of the female role is when the women take on all the responsibilities of housework’s which means that women get stress-related illnesses as they have to do most of the dull work.
This doesn’t show a fair view as the social group suggests that females have a longer life expectancy, whereas this explanation shows that women have to work in the house more and attend work which means they’ll have a lot of stress related work and may have a shorter life expectancy and will have a lot of illness. The disadvantage of this is that it doesn’t show the statistics of the males who do house work and what the impacts are on the male because of females. The advantages are that it has numbers that can give one an idea of how much they work in a week.