Social Determinants of Health: A Quick Guide for Health Professionals 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary factors that shape the health of Canadians are not medical treatments or lifestyle choices but rather the living conditions they experience. These conditions have come to be known as the social determinants of health (SDH).[1] The importance to health of living conditions was first established in the mid-1800s[2,3] and has been enshrined in Canadian government policy documents since the mid-1970s.[4] In fact, Canadian contributions to the SDH concept have been so extensive as to make Canada a “health promotion powerhouse” in the eyes of the international health community.[5] Recent reports from Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer,[6] the Canadian Senate[7], and the Public Health Agency of Canada[8] continue to document the importance of the SDH. But this information – based on decades of research and hundreds of studies in Canada and elsewhere – tells a story that is still unfamiliar to most Canadians. Canadians are largely unaware that our health is shaped by how income and wealth are distributed, whether or not we are employed, and if so, the working conditions we experience. Furthermore, our well-being is determined by the health and social services we receive, along with our access to quality education, food and housing, and other factors.[9] Contrary to the assumption that Canadians have personal control over these factors, in most cases these living conditions are – for better or worse – imposed upon us by the quality of the communities, housing situations, work settings, health and social service agencies, and educational institutions we have access to .[10] There is much evidence that the quality of the SDH Canadians experience helps explain the wide health inequalities that exist. How long Canadians can expect to live and whether they experience cardiovascular disease or adult-onset diabetes is very much determined by their living conditions.[11,12] The same goes for the health of their children: differences among Canadian children in surviving beyond their first year of life, in experiencing afflictions such as asthma and injuries, and whether they fall behind in school, are strongly related to the SDH they are exposed to.[13] Research is also finding that the quality of these health-shaping living conditions is strongly determined by decisions that governments make in a range of different public policy domains.[14] Governments at the municipal, provincial/territorial, and federal levels create policies, laws and regulations that influence how much income Canadians receive through employment, family benefits or social assistance, along with the quality and availability of affordable housing, the kinds of health and social services and recreational opportunities we can access, and even what happens when Canadians lose their jobs during economic downturns. These experiences also provide the best explanations for how Canada compares to other nations in overall health. Canadians generally enjoy better health than Americans, but do not do
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.128 | 0.048 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".