Understanding the role of welfare state characteristics for health and inequalities - an analytical review.
Understanding the role of welfare state characteristics for health and inequalities - an analytical review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2458-13-1234
复制
发表时间：
2013-12-27
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Lundberg O
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bergqvist K;Yngwe MA;Lundberg O
在过去的十年中，已经见证了越来越多的研究福利国家的特点和健康不平等，但图片是，尽管如此，不一致的。我们的目的是审查这项研究的重点是研究之间的理论和方法的差异，至少在一定程度上可能导致这些混合的结果。人工检索了3篇综述和相关参考文献，以便为综述找到研究。在PubMed、Web of Science和Google Scholar中检索相关文章。在PubMed和Web of Science中进行数据库检索。检索期限于2005年1月1日至2013年2月28日。54项研究符合纳入标准。比较福利国家研究的三种主要方法是：制度方法，制度方法和支出方法。制度的方法是最常见的，无论经验的制度理论和对这些所作的修正，结果是不同的和矛盾的。当根据其他特征对研究进行分层时，并没有增加多少清晰度。体制办法显示出更加一致的结果;慷慨的政策和福利似乎与人口中所有人的健康以积极的方式相关联，而不仅仅是那些直接受影响或成为目标的人。支出方法发现，社会和卫生支出以某种方式与健康水平的提高和健康不平等的减少有关，但研究数量很少，因此难以获得一致的结果。根据以前的评论和我们的研究结果，我们建议，未来的研究应该更少地关注福利制度和健康不平等，更多地关注多种不同类型的研究，包括更大的分析社会支出和社会权利在各个政策领域，以及这些如何与健康在不同的社会阶层。但是，我们还需要对具体方案或干预措施进行更详细的评估，并对需要利用集体资源的人民和家庭在不同类型政策方面的经验进行更定性的分析。
The past decade has witnessed a growing body of research on welfare state characteristics and health inequalities but the picture is, despite this, inconsistent. We aim to review this research by focusing on theoretical and methodological differences between studies that at least in part may lead to these mixed findings. Three reviews and relevant bibliographies were manually explored in order to find studies for the review. Related articles were searched for in PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Database searches were done in PubMed and Web of Science. The search period was restricted to 2005-01-01 to 2013-02-28. Fifty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. Three main approaches to comparative welfare state research are identified; the Regime approach, the Institutional approach, and the Expenditure approach. The Regime approach is the most common and regardless of the empirical regime theory employed and the amendments made to these, results are diverse and contradictory. When stratifying studies according to other features, not much added clarity is achieved. The Institutional approach shows more consistent results; generous policies and benefits seem to be associated with health in a positive way for all people in a population, not only those who are directly affected or targeted. The Expenditure approach finds that social and health spending is associated with increased levels of health and smaller health inequalities in one way or another but the studies are few in numbers making it somewhat difficult to get coherent results. Based on earlier reviews and our results we suggest that future research should focus less on welfare regimes and health inequalities and more on a multitude of different types of studies, including larger analyses of social spending and social rights in various policy areas and how these are linked to health in different social strata. But, we also need more detailed evaluation of specific programmes or interventions, as well as more qualitative analyses of the experiences of different types of policies among the people and families that need to draw on the collective resources.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
2
作者：
Deeming, Chris;Hayes, David
通讯作者：
Hayes, David
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
Engster, Daniel;Stensoeta, Helena Olofsdotter
通讯作者：
Stensoeta, Helena Olofsdotter
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Eikemo, Terje A.;Huisman, Martijn;Kunst, Anton E.
通讯作者：
Kunst, Anton E.
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Bambra, Clare
通讯作者：
Bambra, Clare
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Bambra, C.;Eikemo, T. A.
通讯作者：
Eikemo, T. A.