Limits...
A Systematic Literature Review of Studies Analyzing Inequalities in Health Expectancy among the Older Population.

Pongiglione B, De Stavola BL, Ploubidis GB - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Evidence of gender-based differentials and a socioeconomic gradient were found in all studies.This review showed a general agreement of results obtained in different studies with regard to the existence of inequalities associated with several factors, such as gender, education, behaviors, and race.The need of conceiving health expectancy as a comparable and repeatable measure was highlighted as fundamental to make it an informative instrument for policy makers.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Medical Statistics Department, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT

Aim: To collect, organize and appraise evidence of socioeconomic and demographic inequalities in health and mortality among the older population using a summary measure of population health: Health Expectancy.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted. Literature published in English before November 2014 was searched via two possible sources: three electronic databases (Web of Science, Medline and Embase), and references in selected articles. The search was developed combining terms referring to outcome, exposure and participants, consisting in health expectancy, socioeconomic and demographic groups, and older population, respectively.

Results: Of 256 references identified, 90 met the inclusion criteria. Six references were added after searching reference lists of included articles. Thirty-three studies were focused only on gender-based inequalities; the remaining sixty-three considered gender along with other exposures. Findings were organized according to two leading perspectives: the type of inequalities considered and the health indicators chosen to measure health expectancy. Evidence of gender-based differentials and a socioeconomic gradient were found in all studies. A remarkable heterogeneity in the choice of health indicators used to compute health expectancy emerged as well as a non-uniform way of defining same health conditions.

Conclusions: Health expectancy is a useful and convenient measure to monitor and assess the quality of ageing and compare different groups and populations. This review showed a general agreement of results obtained in different studies with regard to the existence of inequalities associated with several factors, such as gender, education, behaviors, and race. However, the lack of a standardized definition of health expectancy limits its comparability across studies. The need of conceiving health expectancy as a comparable and repeatable measure was highlighted as fundamental to make it an informative instrument for policy makers.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Flow diagram of systematic review.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4482630&req=5

pone.0130747.g001: Flow diagram of systematic review.

Mentions: From the combination of the three databases, 256 references were identified and screened after deduplication (Fig 1). After reviewing titles and abstracts and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 110 references were read in full text and 90 selected (a list of the 20 studies considered for inclusion, but finally excluded is provided in S3 Table). Checking the lists of references of these studies, we identified 6 additional articles that were also included. Of the 96 references composing this systematic review, 33 were focused only on gender-based inequalities; the remaining 63 considered gender along with other exposures.


A Systematic Literature Review of Studies Analyzing Inequalities in Health Expectancy among the Older Population.

Pongiglione B, De Stavola BL, Ploubidis GB - PLoS ONE (2015)

Flow diagram of systematic review.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4482630&req=5

pone.0130747.g001: Flow diagram of systematic review.
Mentions: From the combination of the three databases, 256 references were identified and screened after deduplication (Fig 1). After reviewing titles and abstracts and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 110 references were read in full text and 90 selected (a list of the 20 studies considered for inclusion, but finally excluded is provided in S3 Table). Checking the lists of references of these studies, we identified 6 additional articles that were also included. Of the 96 references composing this systematic review, 33 were focused only on gender-based inequalities; the remaining 63 considered gender along with other exposures.

Bottom Line: Evidence of gender-based differentials and a socioeconomic gradient were found in all studies.This review showed a general agreement of results obtained in different studies with regard to the existence of inequalities associated with several factors, such as gender, education, behaviors, and race.The need of conceiving health expectancy as a comparable and repeatable measure was highlighted as fundamental to make it an informative instrument for policy makers.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Medical Statistics Department, Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, London, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT

Aim: To collect, organize and appraise evidence of socioeconomic and demographic inequalities in health and mortality among the older population using a summary measure of population health: Health Expectancy.

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted. Literature published in English before November 2014 was searched via two possible sources: three electronic databases (Web of Science, Medline and Embase), and references in selected articles. The search was developed combining terms referring to outcome, exposure and participants, consisting in health expectancy, socioeconomic and demographic groups, and older population, respectively.

Results: Of 256 references identified, 90 met the inclusion criteria. Six references were added after searching reference lists of included articles. Thirty-three studies were focused only on gender-based inequalities; the remaining sixty-three considered gender along with other exposures. Findings were organized according to two leading perspectives: the type of inequalities considered and the health indicators chosen to measure health expectancy. Evidence of gender-based differentials and a socioeconomic gradient were found in all studies. A remarkable heterogeneity in the choice of health indicators used to compute health expectancy emerged as well as a non-uniform way of defining same health conditions.

Conclusions: Health expectancy is a useful and convenient measure to monitor and assess the quality of ageing and compare different groups and populations. This review showed a general agreement of results obtained in different studies with regard to the existence of inequalities associated with several factors, such as gender, education, behaviors, and race. However, the lack of a standardized definition of health expectancy limits its comparability across studies. The need of conceiving health expectancy as a comparable and repeatable measure was highlighted as fundamental to make it an informative instrument for policy makers.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus