MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096869679 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckp025

Report of the WHO commission on social determinants of health: a French perspective

2009· article· en· W2096869679 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thierry Lang, Monique Kaminski, Annette Leclerc

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthInequalityHealth policyPoliticsSocial inequalityPolitical scienceSocial determinants of healthContemplationCommissionState (computer science)SociologyLawHealth careMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seen from France, this report underlines how far we still have to go in our country to reduce social inequalities in health. France is not one of the partner countries of the Commission1 and the conceptions of health determinants which are developed in the report appear far removed from the paradigm which predominates in our country. We can no longer say that France is at the ‘pre-contemplative’ stage:2 data exist, the phenomenon of social inequalities in health is known and well documented for numerous states of health. But these efforts, which issue largely from the world of research, have not resulted in a system of routine statistical surveillance. Furthermore, at this ‘contemplative’ stage, there is no explicit public policy and no objective written down in law. In the law on public health policy of 2004, objective 34 touches on this question, but restricts it to the state of health of the most precarious populations. As stated in the report, reduction of social inequalities in health is above all a political problem, but it is essential to provide evidence. In this respect, the report lends support to those who, in France, think that it is important to continue to increase our knowledge of the subject, but that the most pressing question is how we can move on to the active stage. It is strange to see how our country, always ready to give others lessons on human rights, tolerates a problem as well documented as social inequalities in health. Although the right to optimal health is laid down in a number of texts, this question of social justice and ethics does not mobilize opinion. This is so in France, but also throughout the world. The question thus remains to find out on what basis opinion and the decision makers can be mobilized. Though today it is unfortunately a fragile argument, it seems to us that the ethical imperative put forward in the report must remain central. The fact that the reduction of social inequalities can be a source of economic gain, as shown in a Canadian report,1 is an argument to be developed in order to remove economic objections, but it cannot be the central argument for mobilization. This report may well enjoy less popularity in France than a previous WHO report.3 In its World Health Report 2000, the World Health Organisation had no hesitation in describing the French health system as one of the best in the world. In that report, the conception of health determinants was in line with the prevailing conception in France. The health system was described as being the essential factor of the good health of a country. ‘If Sweden enjoys better health than Uganda—life expectancy is almost exactly twice as long—it is in large part because it spends exactly 35 times as much per capita in its health systems.’3 On the basis of this analysis, since 1945 France has enjoyed a system of social protection which proclaims, among its objectives, the improvement of the population's level of health. Within this system of social protection, the general health insurance system, completed by specific schemes for the poorest among the population, should allow widespread access to health care. The number of French people who have the benefit of insurance against ill health has constantly increased over the years and now almost the entire population is covered. In 2002, according to the Health and Social Protection survey, 91% of residents in France also had complementary coverage.4 At the same time, the mortality statistics remind us that in this country social inequalities in health are particularly marked in comparison with our European neighbours. This apparent paradox calls into question such a conception of health. The 2008 report puts the determinants back into perspective in a most useful way. On a world-wide scale, access to drinking water, to a diet which prevents malnutrition, protection against the vagaries of the climate are the major decisive factors in social inequalities in health. In line with this analysis, the report emphasizes actions which target determinants outside the health system and the need for a coherent policy in order to achieve health equity. A large number of spheres are involved, some of which seem a priori far removed from health: these are not only education, but also access to employment, working conditions, the age of retirement, the housing policy and lastly policies of redistribution, through taxation and direct financial aid. These are all relevant to social inequalities in health in France. The impact of investments concerning children at the very start of life and young people, in particular relating to education and training, is strongly pertinent to social inequalities in health, especially because of the links between education, qualification and health later in life. The role of unemployment and working conditions1 and of housing and transports are emphasized. In agreement with studies which have shown the protective influence of social networks and social support, and the role that a sense of control over one's life can play, citizens are encouraged to participate actively in decisions related to health—and this theme is a far-reaching one. Behaviour change is not mediated only by individual approaches to health education. The prices of food products, the industrial processing of foods, institutional catering, advertising, legislative measures and regulations are all paths to be explored. We must thus be delighted that the report stresses the intersectoral aspect of the fight against social inequalities in health, as this is a key issue. For example, the report points out the contradictions which were observed in certain Northern European countries when the common agricultural policy of the European Union came to thwart the efforts of the health authorities, themselves supported by the government.5 It thus will help to promote an intersectoral approach to health, at a national and at a European level, a choice which involves fundamental policy choices. For example, the increase in precarious employment, obligatorily part-time work, poorly paid jobs and their detrimental effects clearly shows that what is at stake here is the choice between a potential political determination and the predominantly economic (and short term) approach which is that of the liberal ideology. Just as for the issue of climate change, the fight against social inequalities in health is clearly revealed here as a global combat implying a choice of development strategy. Measurement and surveillance are one dimension of the solution. With the partial exception of death certificates and of a longitudinal survey of mortality based on the Permanent Demographic Sample, in France social characteristics are ignored by nearly all routine statistics, whether hospital information systems, health insurance data or registers of specific diseases. The data produced by research studies, generally based on one-off surveys or at best surveys repeated every few years, do not allow us to grasp changes in inequalities over time. The proposals for a minimum statistic system and a system which covers social determinants are important and should be developed in France. The information systems of healthcare institutions, starting with those of hospitals, are silent as to the social situation of those who use them, and this evidently restricts their ability to adapt their services to the needs of these persons. Naturally, the report does not elude the question of healthcare and advocates universal access to quality care. At a time when health expenditure is strictly limited, it is important to examine the question of patients’ share in these expenses and its effects on care consumption and health in the light of health inequalities. The Rand Corporation study,6 carried out in the 1970s in a sample of American families, followed for 3–5 years and randomly assigned to health insurance plans which differed by levels of reimbursement and the share to be paid by the household, is still topical. The conclusions of this randomized study showed that the amount of care consumed decreased markedly as soon as >25% of the cost was borne by the patient. No difference in state of health was observed in the population as a whole. But the impact of the cost to be borne made itself felt as soon as the poor population was concerned. It is interesting to point out that the share borne by the patient in France has been around 25% during the last 20 years, a proportion which has tended to increase. But the tendency in France is to increase the participation of households in health expenses, including (particularly) persons who are in a precarious situation because of their state of health, with in due course an impact on social inequalities in health. The report stresses the need for health systems to be proactive. Taking the need for proactivity into account is particularly pertinent in France, where the system is still widely based on a logic of offer. Issues related to secondary access to care are somewhat briefly dealt with in the report, which is strongly centred on primary access. But to ensure that this first phase is well organized is not sufficient if the system is ineffective in other respects, or if its malfunctions concern mainly the most disadvantaged patients.7 The report suggests that the role of the healthcare system goes beyond the treatment of diseases. Physicians and the other health professionals are leaders of opinion, who influence conceptions and representations of health. Finally, this is where analysis of health determinants is put together and where the directions taken by public health and research are given value. This last remark underlines the importance of giving professionals training on social determinants of health. Their commitment is undoubtedly essential to negotiate the turn towards less biological or medicinal concepts of health. The way in which behaviours are conceptualized in fact determines the way in which they will be taken into account by public health. In agreement with what we have said above, the presentation in the report of the aims of research in public health is particularly pertinent: research on the causes of social inequalities in health, on interventions aiming to reduce them, analysis of public policies and lastly statistical measurement and surveillance. In view of the issues at stake and of the nature of the determinants, research on health should be more interdisciplinary and should integrate social determinants. Redressing the balance towards these objectives should enhance their value, unlike a primarily biological or disease-oriented approach. The complexity of the interventions and so of the methods used to evaluate them justifies not only the interdisciplinary approach, but also a reflection on the notion of proof. Going beyond randomized trials, the question is how to make use of qualitative as well as quantitative data. Evaluation of interventions and strategies to reduce social inequalities in health raises a difficult problem, particularly when these are interventions of a structural type or which aim at long-term modifications. Assessing a research programme carried out in the Netherlands on social inequalities in health, it was found that the interventions subsidized by the programme had been specific, targeted interventions that were easy to evaluate. The projects evaluated were all of this type, to the exclusion of any wide ranging, far-reaching public policy.8 The causes of inequalities are multiple, and several levels of explanation coexist, proximal and fundamental causes. We pay tribute to the very ambitious nature of this report, which runs counter to the policies of international bodies (WTO) and so underlines the most fundamental causes of health inequalities. The main messages of the report are all the more essential as the financial and economic crisis may worsen inequalities by affecting the weakest first. Can health be the theme to mobilize us towards humane objectives, not only economic ones? The report stresses that the sector of health and healthcare professionals, including the minister or ministers responsible, could take position as defenders of wide societal objectives giving health and health equality their rightful place as a marker of progress. This supposes that professionals and politicians become aware of the importance of social determinants of health. This task is a particularly important one in France, and it is without doubt one of our primary challenges.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207