Limits...
A Problem with the Individual Approach in the WHO Health Inequality Measurement.

Asada Y, Hedemann T - Int J Equity Health (2002)

Bottom Line: SUMMARY: We argue that the World Health Organization's health inequality measure is not value-free.The World Health Organization's normative position can be interpreted as a quite expansive view of justice, in which health distributions that have causes amenable to human intervention are considered to be matters of justice.Our conclusion is that if the World Health Organization's health inequality measure is to be interpreted meaningfully in a policy context, its conceptual underpinning must be re-evaluated.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Population Health Sciences University of Wisconsin-Madison 610 N, Walnut Street, WARF, 7th Floor Madison, WI 53705-2397, USA. yasada@wisc.edu

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the World Health Report 2000, the World Health Organization made the controversial choice to measure inequality across individuals rather than across groups, the standard in the field. This choice has been widely discussed and criticized. DISCUSSION: We look at the three questions: (1) is the World Health Organization's health inequality measure value-free as it claims? (2) if it is not, what is the normative position implied by its approach when measuring health inequality? and (3) is the individual approach a logically consistent methodological choice for that normative position? SUMMARY: We argue that the World Health Organization's health inequality measure is not value-free. If it was, the health inequality information that the measurement collected could not reasonably be included in its ranking of how well national health systems performed. The World Health Organization's normative position can be interpreted as a quite expansive view of justice, in which health distributions that have causes amenable to human intervention are considered to be matters of justice. Our conclusion is that if the World Health Organization's health inequality measure is to be interpreted meaningfully in a policy context, its conceptual underpinning must be re-evaluated.

No MeSH data available.


Health distributions at the group level. Distributions of health expectancy for country A and B are broken down to distributions of two groups. Group distributions are much more stratified in country A than B.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC119370&req=5

Figure 2: Health distributions at the group level. Distributions of health expectancy for country A and B are broken down to distributions of two groups. Group distributions are much more stratified in country A than B.

Mentions: It is likely that on the WHO method, country A would get a better inequality score than country B. But suppose that if we investigated country A a bit closer, we would find a situation like Figure 2. That is, we would find that health is very closely correlated with membership of cultural groups, such that membership in group 1 is correlated with very high health while membership in group 2 is correlated with correspondingly low health. We do not, on the other hand, observe such a difference in terms of group affiliation in Country B.


A Problem with the Individual Approach in the WHO Health Inequality Measurement.

Asada Y, Hedemann T - Int J Equity Health (2002)

Health distributions at the group level. Distributions of health expectancy for country A and B are broken down to distributions of two groups. Group distributions are much more stratified in country A than B.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC119370&req=5

Figure 2: Health distributions at the group level. Distributions of health expectancy for country A and B are broken down to distributions of two groups. Group distributions are much more stratified in country A than B.
Mentions: It is likely that on the WHO method, country A would get a better inequality score than country B. But suppose that if we investigated country A a bit closer, we would find a situation like Figure 2. That is, we would find that health is very closely correlated with membership of cultural groups, such that membership in group 1 is correlated with very high health while membership in group 2 is correlated with correspondingly low health. We do not, on the other hand, observe such a difference in terms of group affiliation in Country B.

Bottom Line: SUMMARY: We argue that the World Health Organization's health inequality measure is not value-free.The World Health Organization's normative position can be interpreted as a quite expansive view of justice, in which health distributions that have causes amenable to human intervention are considered to be matters of justice.Our conclusion is that if the World Health Organization's health inequality measure is to be interpreted meaningfully in a policy context, its conceptual underpinning must be re-evaluated.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Population Health Sciences University of Wisconsin-Madison 610 N, Walnut Street, WARF, 7th Floor Madison, WI 53705-2397, USA. yasada@wisc.edu

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the World Health Report 2000, the World Health Organization made the controversial choice to measure inequality across individuals rather than across groups, the standard in the field. This choice has been widely discussed and criticized. DISCUSSION: We look at the three questions: (1) is the World Health Organization's health inequality measure value-free as it claims? (2) if it is not, what is the normative position implied by its approach when measuring health inequality? and (3) is the individual approach a logically consistent methodological choice for that normative position? SUMMARY: We argue that the World Health Organization's health inequality measure is not value-free. If it was, the health inequality information that the measurement collected could not reasonably be included in its ranking of how well national health systems performed. The World Health Organization's normative position can be interpreted as a quite expansive view of justice, in which health distributions that have causes amenable to human intervention are considered to be matters of justice. Our conclusion is that if the World Health Organization's health inequality measure is to be interpreted meaningfully in a policy context, its conceptual underpinning must be re-evaluated.

No MeSH data available.