MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025203892 · doi:10.2105/ajph.2007.129361

Income-Related Health Inequalities in Canada and the United States: A Decomposition Analysis

2009· article· en· W2025203892 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kimberlyn McGrail, Eddy van Doorslaer, Nancy A. Ross, Claudia Sanmartin

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Public Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersErasmus+
KeywordsInequalityHealth equityHealth careEnvironmental healthDistribution (mathematics)MedicineEconomicsEconomic growthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: We examined income-related inequalities in self-reported health in the United States and Canada and the extent to which they are associated with individual-level risk factors and health care system characteristics. METHODS: We estimated income inequalities with concentration indexes and curves derived from comparable survey data from the 2002 to 2003 Joint Canada-US Survey of Health. Inequalities were then decomposed by regression and decomposition analysis to distinguish the contributions of various factors. RESULTS: The distribution of income accounted for close to half of income-related health inequalities in both the United States and Canada. Health care system factors (e.g., unmet needs and health insurance status) and risk factors (e.g., physical inactivity and obesity) contributed more to income-related health inequalities in the United States than to those in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level health risk factors and health care system characteristics have similar associations with health status in both countries, but they both are far more prevalent and much more concentrated among lower-income groups in the United States than in Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations140
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Public HealthSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207