TY - JOUR
T1 - Educational differentials in disability vary across and within welfare regimes
T2 - a comparison of 26 European countries in 2009
AU - Cambois, Emmanuelle
AU - Solé-Auró, Aïda
AU - Brønnum-Hansen, Henrik
AU - Egidi, Viviana
AU - Jagger, Carol
AU - Jeune, Bernard
AU - Nusselder, Wilma J
AU - Van Oyen, Herman
AU - White, Chris
AU - Robine, Jean-Marie
N1 - Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
PY - 2016
Y1 - 2016
N2 - BACKGROUND: Social differentials in disability prevalence exist in all European countries, but their scale varies markedly. To improve understanding of this variation, the article focuses on each end of the social gradient. It compares the extent of the higher disability prevalence in low social groups (referred to as disability disadvantage) and of the lower prevalence in high social groups (disability advantage); country-specific advantages/disadvantages are discussed regarding the possible influence of welfare regimes.METHODS: Cross-sectional disability prevalence is measured by longstanding health-related activity limitation (AL) in the 2009 European Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) across 26 countries classified into four welfare regime groups. Logistic models adjusted by country, age and sex (in all 30-79 years and in three age-bands) measured the country-specific ORs across education, representing the AL-disadvantage of low-educated and AL-advantage of high-educated groups relative to middle-educated groups.RESULTS: The relative AL-disadvantage of the low-educated groups was small in Sweden (eg, 1.2 (1.0-1.4)), Finland, Romania, Bulgaria and Spain (youngest age-band), but was large in the Czech Republic (eg, 1.9 (1.7-2.2)), Denmark, Belgium, Italy and Hungary. The high-educated groups had a small relative AL-advantage in Denmark (eg, 0.9 (0.8-1.1)), but a large AL-advantage in Lithuania (eg, 0.5 (0.4-0.6)), half of the Baltic and Eastern European countries, Norway and Germany (youngest age-band). There were notable differences within welfare regime groups.CONCLUSIONS: The country-specific disability advantages/disadvantages across educational groups identified here could help to identify determining factors and the efficiency of national policies implemented to tackle social differentials in health.
AB - BACKGROUND: Social differentials in disability prevalence exist in all European countries, but their scale varies markedly. To improve understanding of this variation, the article focuses on each end of the social gradient. It compares the extent of the higher disability prevalence in low social groups (referred to as disability disadvantage) and of the lower prevalence in high social groups (disability advantage); country-specific advantages/disadvantages are discussed regarding the possible influence of welfare regimes.METHODS: Cross-sectional disability prevalence is measured by longstanding health-related activity limitation (AL) in the 2009 European Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) across 26 countries classified into four welfare regime groups. Logistic models adjusted by country, age and sex (in all 30-79 years and in three age-bands) measured the country-specific ORs across education, representing the AL-disadvantage of low-educated and AL-advantage of high-educated groups relative to middle-educated groups.RESULTS: The relative AL-disadvantage of the low-educated groups was small in Sweden (eg, 1.2 (1.0-1.4)), Finland, Romania, Bulgaria and Spain (youngest age-band), but was large in the Czech Republic (eg, 1.9 (1.7-2.2)), Denmark, Belgium, Italy and Hungary. The high-educated groups had a small relative AL-advantage in Denmark (eg, 0.9 (0.8-1.1)), but a large AL-advantage in Lithuania (eg, 0.5 (0.4-0.6)), half of the Baltic and Eastern European countries, Norway and Germany (youngest age-band). There were notable differences within welfare regime groups.CONCLUSIONS: The country-specific disability advantages/disadvantages across educational groups identified here could help to identify determining factors and the efficiency of national policies implemented to tackle social differentials in health.
U2 - 10.1136/jech-2015-205978
DO - 10.1136/jech-2015-205978
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 26546286
VL - 70
SP - 331
EP - 338
JO - Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health
JF - Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health
SN - 0143-005X
IS - 4
ER -