Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Household income, income inequality, and health-related quality of life measured by the EQ-5D in Shaanxi, China: a cross-sectional study

  • Zhijun Tan1,
  • Fuyan Shi1, 2,
  • Haiyue Zhang1,
  • Ning Li3,
  • Yongyong Xu1 and
  • Ying Liang1Email author
Contributed equally
International Journal for Equity in Health201817:32

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-018-0745-9

Received: 23 April 2017

Accepted: 6 March 2018

Published: 14 March 2018

Abstract

Background

In advanced economies, economic factors have been found to be associated with many health outcomes, including health-related quality of life (HRQL), and people’s health is affected more by income inequality than by absolute income. However, few studies have examined the association of income inequality and absolute income with HRQL in transitional economies using individual data. This paper focuses on the effects of county or district income inequality and absolute income on the HRQL measured by EQ-5D and the differences between rural and urban regions in Shaanxi province, China.

Methods

Data were collected from the 2008 National Health Service Survey conducted in Shaanxi, China. The EQ-5D index based on Japanese weights was employed as a health indicator. The income inequality was calculated on the basis of self-reported income. The special requirements for complex survey data analysis were considered in the bivariate analysis and linear regression models.

Results

The mean of the EQ-5D index was 94.6. The EQ-5D index of people with low income was lower than that in the high-income group (for people in the rural region: 93.2 v 96.1, P < 0.01; for people in the urban region: 95.5 v 96.8, P < 0.01). Compared with people with moderate inequality, the EQ-5D index of those with high inequality was relatively lower (for people living in the rural region: 91.1 v 95.8, P < 0.01; for people living in the urban region: 95.6 v 97.3, P < 0.01). Adjusted by age, gender, education, marital status, employment, medical insurance, and chronic disease, all the coefficients of the low-income group and high income inequality were significantly negative. After stratifying by income group, all the effects of high income inequality remained negative in both income groups. However, the coefficients of the models in the high income group were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Income inequality has damaging effects on HRQL in Shaanxi, China, especially for people with low income. In addition, people living in rural regions were more vulnerable to economic factors.

Background

It has been demonstrated that socioeconomic factors affect health through material and psychosocial pathways [1]. Materially, people with higher income may have more or better material goods and health services and be much healthier as a result [1]. However, average income levels (e.g., gross national income per capita) are not always associated with health in rich countries, yet there are strong associations between income inequality and health, which suggests that psychosocial mechanisms are relevant [24]. For instance, in a society with greater income inequality, people in lower social positions are more likely to be exposed to behavioral risks resulting from psychosocial stress, including stress-related smoking, drinking, and eating “for comfort.” Previous ecological studies across and within countries have indicated that health indicators at the population level, such as mortality and life expectancy, are associated with income inequality [58], though there is still debate about the degree of this association [9, 10]. With the establishment of diverse health survey systems and the increasing availability of individual health data, more in-depth studies at the level of the individual have been conducted in Europe [1113], the US [1418], Japan [19, 20], as well as in the mainland China [21] and Hong Kong [22].

Chronic non-communicable diseases have become one of the most important disease burden worldwide [23, 24]. The measurements of the outcomes of health or disease are no longer limited to objective indicators (e.g, mortality, morbidity, life expectancy, etc.) but are expanding to health-related quality of life (HRQL), which reflects the subjective feeling of health [25, 26]. Many researchers have employed the self-rating of health in their individual-level studies [1113, 17, 20, 27], which reflects personal and subjective judgments of health and conforms to the biopsychosocial medical model. EQ-5D is a useful tool for measuring HRQL in terms of disease, disability, and psychology and is widely used in many countries for its simplicity of administration [2833]. Since 2008, EQ-5D has been included in the Chinese National Health Service Survey (NHSS), which is the largest national representative health survey.

Chiang et al. examined the changing relationship between income inequality and mortality across different stages of economic development in Taiwan [10]. He found that in the transitional process of moving from an agricultural to an industrial economy, the association between relative income and health was increasing, while the connection between absolute income and health was decreasing. However, most published studies were from societies in advanced economies and few were from developing economies due to limited access and the poor quality of individual health data. Shaanxi is an interior province located in northwestern China, and its economy is rapidly developing. With the strategies of reform and opening up and Development of the Western Regions effectively implemented in China, Shaanxi’s economy has experienced rapid development over the last 30 years [34, 35]. The gross domestic product per capita in Shaanxi reached 291 yuan, 4968 yuan, and 14,607 yuan in 1978, 2000, and 2007, respectively. However, income disparity has rapidly broadened during this period. For example, Yuchun Zhu et al. reported that the Gini coefficient in this region was 0.06 in 1978, peaked at 0.37 in 2000, and decreased a little to 0.28 in 2004 [35].

Using the data from the NHSS (2008) and the Shaanxi province census data, this study examined the status of the association between income inequality and HRQL and the differences in the association between high- and low-income groups as well as between rural and urban regions.

Methods

Basic characteristics of China and Shaanxi

Shaanxi has a population of about 37 million and is located in northwestern China (Fig. 1a). Figure 1b and c show the distributions of the county- or district-level per capita household income of rural and urban residents, indicating intraprovincial, rural–urban (urban income is nearly four times more than rural income), and regional (north, central, south) disparity in household income. Compared with the other 30 provinces/municipalities in China, Shaanxi is one of the least developed provinces in terms of both health and economy (Table 1).
Figure 1
Fig. 1

a The location of Shaanxi Province in China. b The spatial distribution of county- or district-level per capita household income in rural regions in 2009. c The spatial distribution of county- or district-level per capita household income in urban regions in 2009

Table 1

Basic socioeconomic and health characteristics of China and Shaanxi,a 2007

 

China

Shaanxi

Rankingsb

Socioeconomic indicators

 Per capita GDP (yuan)

18,934

14,350

21

 Per capita disposable income (yuan)

  Urban regions

13,786

10,763

28

  Rural regions

4140

2645

28

Health indicators

 Life expectancy

  Men

69.6

68.9

22

  Women

73.3

71.3

24

 Mortality (1/1000)

6.93

6.16

11

 Morbidity of statutory infectious diseases (1/100,000)

272.4

254.2

18

aLife expectancy data were from the 2000 census, and other data were from the Annual Health Statistics in 2008

bShaanxi’s rankings among 31 provinces or municipalities (descending)

Sources of data

Data were collected from Shaanxi’s 2008 NHSS, which was conducted by the National Health and Family Planning Commission (NHFPC) every five years beginning in 1993. The sample size of the NHSS was large, and the individual income and HRQL data were of high quality; therefore, it was a good data resource for exploring the association between income inequity and HRQL in China. A multi-stage stratified clustering method was employed to select a provincially representative sample involving 41 of the 107 counties (rural areas) or districts (urban areas) and 13,014 participants in 10 cities. More details about Shaanxi’s fourth NHSS can be found in a previous relevant study [33]. After excluding participants aged 15 or younger and records with missing values on key variables, including age, gender, education, marital status, employment, medical insurance, income, and chronic disease, a total of 10,793 individuals were included in the analysis. Among these variables, income had the largest missing proportion at 1.2%, and smoking status had the lowest at 0.4%.

In the NHSS, the household income was defined as net household income in rural regions and as cash income after tax payments and receipt of benefits in urban regions. To reduce the effects of household size, the average household income was calculated as per capita income and was classified into two groups (above and below the 60th percentile). The Gini coefficient is a measure of statistical dispersion intended to represent the income or wealth distribution of a nation’s residents. In this study, it was used to measure income inequality in each county or district. The following simplified formula was used to calculate the county or district Gini coefficient [36]:

$$ \mathrm{Gini}=1-\frac{1}{n}\left(2\sum \limits_{i=1}^{n-1}{W}_i+1\right). $$

First, the per capita income was ranked in ascending order for every county and district. Second, it was divided equally into n groups (n = 5). W i is the proportion of the sum of individual incomes in the ith group to the total income in the county or district. Third, the Gini coefficient was calculated for each county and district. Then, the 41 Gini coefficients were divided into two groups according to the 60th percentile value, which was 0.31 (mean = 0.3, SD = 0.07, min = 0.19, max = 0.47). As discussed above, the income disparity between rural and urban regions was large. Therefore, the absolute income was categorized according to the 60th percentile separately for rural and urban regions. The 60th percentiles of income in rural and urban regions were 3200 yuan and 6749 yuan, respectively.

The EQ-5D consists of five dimensions, including mobility (M), self-care (SC), usual activities (UA), pain or discomfort (PD), and anxiety or depression (AD). In addition to these five dimensions, it includes a visual analog scale (VAS), which allows respondents to rate their current health status on a range from 0 to 100. Each dimension has three levels of response or severity (no problems, some problems, and extreme problems). On the basis of a set of weights, an EQ-5D index that ranged from 0 (the worst imaginable health status) to 1 (the best imaginable health status) could be calculated for every respondent. In the absence of Chinese weights, Japanese weights [37] were employed to calculate the EQ-5D index and then multiplied by 100 to avoid long decimal digits in the results. The following formula was used to calculate the EQ-5D index:

$$ EQ-5D\ index=1- constant-M- SC- UA- PD\hbox{--} AD. $$

In the above formula, the value of the constant is 0.152, and the values of the five dimensions are listed in Tsuchiya’s study [37].

Demographic variables included gender (men, women), age (15–44, 45–64, 65 or above), education (no more than high school, beyond high school), marital status (never married, currently married, divorced or widowed), employment (employed, retired, student, unemployed), medical insurance (none, social medical insurance in rural regions, social medical insurance in urban regions, free medical insurance, others), and chronic condition (yes, no).

Statistical analysis

ANOVA analysis was used to compare the means of the EQ-5D index among different levels of factors, including income, income inequality, and other demographic variables. The independent contributions of these variables were then determined in three linear regression models using the EQ-5D index as the dependent variable. In model I, a bivariate linear regression model was built to examine the relationship between the EQ-5D index and income inequality. In model II, individual income was added as another explanatory variable. In model III, other individual characteristics as well as individual income were added as explanatory variables. Given the heterogeneity between rural and urban regions, all three models were run separately for rural and urban regions. To examine whether the effect of income inequality would vary by individual income in each income group, model III was then stratified and run separately on each individual income group for both rural and urban regions. Considering the sampling features and special requirements for complex survey data analysis [38], “proc surveyreg” in the statistical package SAS 9.1 for Windows was used to estimate means and perform significance tests, setting city as the stratum, household as the cluster, and the reciprocal of the first-stage sampling proportion as the weight. All analyses were standardized by age and gender based on the 2000 census data.

Results

Sociodemographic and health characteristics of NHSS

Table 2 shows the demographic and health characteristics of the sample from Shaanxi’s 2008 NHSS. The EQ-5D index was 94.6, and 13.5% of participants reported some or extreme problems in at least one EQ-5D dimension. The participants who were rural residents, female, aged, divorced or widowed, less educated, unemployed, or with chronic disease were significantly more likely to report some or extreme problems and have a lower EQ-5D index. The EQ-5D indexes for the low and high income groups were 93.2 and 96.1, respectively, in rural regions and 95.5 and 96.8, respectively, in urban regions. Counties or districts with high income inequality were more likely to report worse HRQL in both rural and urban regions.
Table 2

Sociodemographic and health characteristics of a provincially representative sample from Shaanxi, 2008

Variable

No. (%)

EQ-5D index (weighted mean)

Regions

 Rural regions

5013 (46.4)

94.1***

 Urban regions

5780 (53.6)

96.0

Gender

 Men

5282 (48.9)

96.8***

 Women

5511 (51.1)

91.0

Age

 15–44

5540 (51.3)

98.0***

 45–64

3812 (35.3)

93.9

  ≥ 65

1441 (13.4)

81.1

Marital status

 Never married

1927 (17.9)

98.0***

 Currently married

7982 (74.0)

94.8

 Divorced/widowed

884 (8.2)

83.0

Education

 No more than high school

7380 (68.4)

93.4***

 Beyond high school

3413 (31.6)

98.2

Employment

 Employed

5941 (55.0)

96.1***

 Retired

1027 (9.5)

91.4

 Student

905 (8.4)

99.7

 Unemployed

2920 (27.1)

88.1

Social medical insurance

 None

1065 (14.9)

93.6***

 Social medical insurance in rural regions

6476 (60.0)

94.4

 Social medical insurance in urban regions

2497 (23.1)

96.1

 Free medical insurance

133 (1.2)

95.8

 Others

82 (0.8)

98.5

Chronic condition

 Yes

1828 (16.9)

80.6***

 No

8965 (83.1)

97.1

Income group, rural regions

 Low (below 60th percentile)

3005 (59.8)

93.2***

 High (60th and above)

2024 (40.2)

96.1

Income group, urban regions

 Low (below 60th percentile)

3536 (60.1)

95.5***

 High (60th and above)

2348 (39.9)

96.8

Income inequality, rural regions

 Moderate (below 60th percentile)

3499 (69.6)

95.8***

 High (60th and above)

1530 (30.4)

91.1

Income inequality, urban regions

 Moderate (below 60th percentile)

4232 (71.9)

97.3***

 High (60th and above)

1652 (28.1)

95.6

***P < 0.001

Income inequality, income, and EQ-5D index

Figures 2 and 3 present the distribution of EQ-5D indexes among different household income levels and county or district income inequality in rural and urban regions. The EQ-5D index of people with high income was significantly higher than that of the low-income group (for all people living in rural regions: 96.1 v 93.2, P < 0.01; for all people living in urban regions: 96.8 v 95.5, P = 0.01). Compared with people with moderate inequality, the EQ-5D index of those with high inequality was relatively lower (for all people living in rural regions: 91.1 v 95.8, P < 0.01; for people who living in rural regions and having low income: 89.9 v 95.5, P < 0.01; for people living in rural regions and having high income: 95.2 v 96.4, P = 0.22; for all people living in urban regions: 95.6 v 97.3, P < 0.01; for people living in urban regions and having low income: 94.7 v 97.4, P < 0.01; for people living in urban regions and having high income: 96.7 v 97.0, P = 0.82).
Figure 2
Fig. 2

Means of EQ-5D index among different income inequality and household income groups in rural regions. The horizontal axis represents the EQ-5D index, and the vertical axis represents houshold income groups; different colors stand for different income inequality groups

Figure 3
Fig. 3

Means of the EQ-5D index among different income inequality and household income groups in urban regions. The horizontal axis represents EQ-5D index, and the vertical axis represents houshold income groups; different colors stand for different income inequality groups

Results of linear regression models

Multivariate models were used separately to determine the independent associations of household income and income inequality with the EQ-5D index. At the individual level, models were adjusted for other sociodemographic factors, including gender, age, education, marital status, social medical insurance, employment, and chronic disease (Table 3). The coefficients of the low-income group were significantly negative in all the three models in both rural and urban regions, indicating that the HRQL of people with lower income was truly worse than that of people with higher income. With respect to income inequality, all the coefficients for high income inequality were statistically negative compared with those for moderate income inequality, implying that the HRQL of people living in areas with high income inequality was much worse than that of people in areas with moderate income inequality. As income group was incorporated into model II, no obvious effect changes of income inequality were observed. As other covariates were added into model III on the basis of model II, the absolute values of the coefficients of income inequality decreased from − 4.5 to − 3.0 in rural regions and from − 1.8 to − 1.2 in urban regions. In addition to income group and income inequality, other statistically significant covariates included age and chronic disease. In model III, the coefficients of chronic disease were the largest among the risk factors (− 13.7 in rural regions, − 8.1 in urban regions), which indicated that chronic disease was the most important risk factor of poor HRQL. For the items comparing differences between rural and urban regions, most of the coefficients in rural regions were larger, which suggested that the health disparities associated with income and income inequality were much larger in rural regions than in urban regions.
Table 3

County income inequality, household income, and EQ-5D indexa

 

Model I

Model II

Model IIIb

Rural regions

 Income inequality

  High (60th percentile and above)

−4.8 (−6.6, − 3.0)

−4.5 (−6.2, − 2.7)

− 3.0 (−4.3, − 1.6)

  Moderate (below 60th percentile)

0

0

0

 Income group

  Low (below 60th percentile)

−2.4 (−3.5, − 1.2)

− 1.2 (− 2.2, −0.2)

  High (60th percentile and above)

0

0

 Age

  15–44

12.8 (10.0, 15.7)

  45–64

10.7 (7.6, 13.8)

   ≥ 65

0

 Chronic condition

  Yes

 

−13.7 (−16.3, −11.1)

  No

0

Urban regions

 Income inequality

  High (60th percentile and above)

−1.7 (−2.7, −0.6)

−1.8 (−2.9, −0.7)

−1.2 (− 2.2, − 0.2)

  Moderate (below 60th percentile)

0

0

0

 Income group

  Low (below 60th percentile)

−1.5 (−2.5, −0.5)

−1.0 (−2.1, − 0.3)

  High (60th percentile and above)

0

0

 Age

  15–44

7.7 (5.8, 9.6)

  45–64

7.0 (5.2, 8.8)

   ≥ 65

0

 Chronic condition

  Yes

−8.1 (−10.3,−6.0)

  No

0

aLinear regression model with intercept. Figures are the coefficients and the 95% confidence intervals from linear regression models. The ranges that do not include 0 indicate statistical significance

bIndependent variables in model III included gender, education, marital status, employment, and medical insurance, in addition to income inequality, income group, age, and chronic disease. Only coefficients that were statistically significant are shown in the table

The results of model III stratified by income group are shown in Table 4. For the low-income group, the coefficients of income inequality remained statistically negative in both rural and urban regions (− 3.7 v − 1.7). For the high-income group, the coefficients of income inequality also remained negative in both rural and urban regions (− 0.6 v − 0.2); however, they were smaller than those in the low-income group and not statistically significant. These results indicated that income inequality definitely impaired the HRQL of people with relatively low income, and the impairment was much larger in rural regions.
Table 4

Income inequality and HRQL stratified by household income groupa,b

 

Household income group

Low (60th percentile and above)

High (below 60th percentile)

Rural regions

 Income inequality

  High (60th percentile and above)

−3.7 (−5.4, −2.1)

−0.6 (−2.4, 1.3)

  Moderate (below 60th percentile)

0

0

 Age

  15–44

13.8 (10.3, 17.3)

8.0 (3.1, 12.9)

  45–64

11.8 (8.2,15.4)

5.3 (0.2, 10.3)

   ≥ 65

0

0

 Chronic condition

  Yes

−14.9 (−18.0,−11.8)

−10.9 (−14.7, −7.0)

  No

0

0

Urban regions

 Income inequality

  High (60th percentile and above)

−1.7 (−3.0, −0.4)

−0.2 (−1.5, 1.1)

  Moderate (below 60th percentile)

0

0

 Age

  15–44

8.3 (5.8, 10.7)

6.7 (4.1, 9.8)

  45–64

7.1 (4.8, 7.3)

7.0 (4.1, 9.8)

   ≥ 65

0

 

 Chronic condition

  Yes

−8.6 (−11.7, −5.5)

−7.5 (−10.2, −4.7)

  No

0

0

aLinear regression model with intercept. Figures are the coefficients and 95% confidence intervals from the linear regression model. The ranges that do not include 0 indicate statistical significance

bAll the models were adjusted by gender, education, marital status, employment, and medical insurance. Only coefficients that were statistically significant are shown in the table

Discussion

Income inequality has been found to be associated with many negative health outcomes, such as higher mortality, decreased life expectancy, and worse self-rated health, in advanced economies [1118]; however, few studies have focused on developing economies. China’s economic achievement has been termed an “economic miracle.” However, the income disparities between rural and urban regions as well as between coastal and interior regions have increased dramatically over the last 30 years [3941]. As an interior province located in the northwest of China, Shaanxi has experienced a similar social and economic development process. In this study, the associations of HRQL, measured by the EQ-5D, with household income and income inequality were examined on the basis of a provincial representative sample in Shannxi, a rapidly developing economy in China. Our findings indicated that HRQL worsened as income decreased, and the negative effect of income inequality on HRQL was greater for people with low income than those with high income and also greater for people living in rural regions than those living in urban regions.

The effect of low income on HRQL was negative in all the models, which was consistent with previous studies [14, 16] and strongly supported the hypothesis that HRQL worsens as income decreases. In terms of income inequality, our results different somewhat between low- and high-income groups. High income inequality was a significant risk predictor of HRQL in the low-income group, while the effect was not significant in the high-income group. This finding was not fully consistent with studies in advanced economies, in which income inequality was predictive of worse health for people with both low and high income [14, 16, 19]. However, our finding was insufficient to deny or even challenge the two pathways through which income inequality affects health. On the contrary, we still believe that the two pathways [2] also function as important mechanisms in developing economies such as Shaanxi. There may be three factors contributing to the association of HRQL with income inequality in Shaanxi. First, Shaanxi’s income level was still relatively low compared to other areas of China, as shown in Table 1—it had not reached the income level of a developed economy. This may have affected the results for the high-income group. Second, there might be a time lag between the prevalence of income inequality and its effects on HRQL. As Yang et al. reported in his research, in the last two decades, the incomes and the income gap in the north of Shaanxi increased dramatically while environmental pollution also increased due to the exhaustive exploitation of energy resources. The negative effects of environmental pollution on health take time to be observed [42]. Third, the population used to calculate income inequality might not be large enough and may be relatively homogeneous. Therefore, further research on the association of provincial-level income inequality with health in China should be conducted with larger samples.

As seen in Table 3, the coefficients of the models in rural regions were larger than those of urban regions, especially in the low-income group. This implied that the health disparity of people living in rural regions, which had greater income inequality, was much larger than that in urban regions. People in rural regions were much more vulnerable to economic factors, including both absolute and relative income. This suggests that it may be helpful to create different economic and health policies for rural and urban regions, and people in rural regions would achieve more health benefits if policy support could be provided to increase household income as well as reduce personal health expenditure.

This study provides a new perspective on the association between HRQL and income inequality. However, it has a few limitations. One limitation is that the household income was self-reported. Some respondents may have intentionally would underreported their income, which could lead to bias in income and the county or district Gini coefficient. However, the bias would be in the same direction for all counties and districts because most of the bias would result from underreporting, which would not change the relative position of each county and district in the Gini classification. Therefore, our conclusion would still be applicable. In addition, a cross-sectional design limited any inference regarding causation. Therefore, further longitudinal studies examining trends in income inequality, individual income, and health are needed.

Conclusion

Income inequality has a damaging effect on HRQL in Shaanxi, China, especially for people with low income. In addition, people living in rural regions are more vulnerable to economic factors. Therefore, Shaanxi should work to increase income levels, especially among rural residents, and make efforts to reduce income inequality.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the officers of the surveyed counties for their support and assistance in the coordination of this study, the interviewers for their excellent field work, and all respondents for their cooperation.

We thank Accdon for its linguistic assistance during the preparation of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation (No. 81703315, No. 81573250). The funder did not play any role in the study.

Availability of data and materials

Anonymized data are available from the lead author upon request.

Authors’ contributions

Zhijun Tan, Fuyan Shi, and Haiyue Zhang conceived of the study, conducted analyses, and prepared the manuscript draft; Ying Liang prepared sections of the manuscript and commented on manuscript drafts; Ning Li provided demographic statistical data and analysis advice; Yongyong Xu was the original grant holder. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The NHSS 2008 was approved by the National Bureau of Statistics (license number: 2008 [18]). The NHSS is implemented by the NHFPC every five years, and the NHFPC has pledged to protect the privacy of respondents and to facilitate the anonymous analysis of the data according to article 14 of the third chapter of the Statistics Law of the People’s Republic of China. For these reasons, written consent was not required. The investigators read the informed consent statement written on the second page of the questionnaire and verbally asked for the interviewees’ permission. Once the interviewees or their caregivers or guardians (in the case of children) had verbally consented to participate in this study, the investigators would sign their own names at the beginning of the questionnaire.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Health Statistics, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi’an, China
(2)
Department of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Weifang Medical College, Weifang, China
(3)
Division of Resident Income, Shaanxi Provincial Bureau of Statistics, Xi’an, China

References

  1. Wilkinson RG. Socioeconomic determinants of health. Health inequalities: relative or absolute material standards? Br Med J. 1997;314:591–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Cutler D, Deaton A, Lleras-Muney A. The determinants of mortality. J Econ Perspect. 2006;20:97e120.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Preston SH. The changing relation between mortality and level of economic development. Int J Epidemiol. 1975;36:484e490.Google Scholar
  4. Wilkinson R, Pickett K. The spirit level: why more equal societies almost always do better. Penguin, London. 2010a.Google Scholar
  5. Lhila A, Simon KI. Relative deprivation and child health in the USA. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71:777–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sweet E. Symbolic capital, consumption, and health inequality. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(2):260–4.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Danny D, Richard M, Jamie P. The global impact of income inequality on health by age: an observational study. BMJ. 2007;335:873.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Andreas M. Education, income inequality, and mortality: a multiple regression analysis. BMJ. 2002;324:1–4.Google Scholar
  9. Nancy AR, Michael CW, James RD, Jean MB, George AK, John WL. Relation between income inequality and mortality in Canada and in the United States: cross sectional assessment using census data and vital statistics. BMJ. 2000;320:898–902.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Tung­liang C. Economic transition and changing relation between income inequality and mortality in Taiwan: regression analysis. BMJ. 1999;319:1162–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Naoki K, Grace S, Ichiro K, Rob MD, Subramanian SV, Zentaro Y. Income inequality, mortality, and self-rated health: meta-analysis of multilevel studies. BMJ. 2009;339:b4471.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Hugh G, Matthew JW. S. Income, income inequality and health: what can we learn from aggregate data. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:577–89.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Gravelle H, Sutton M. Income, relative income, and self-reported health in Britain 1979-2000. Health Econ. 2009;18:125–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Andrew MJ, John W. Health, income and relative deprivation: evidence from the BHPS. Health Econ. 2008;27(2):308–24.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Lorgelly PK, Lindley J. What is the relationship between income inequality and health? Evidence from the BHPS. Health Econ. 2008;17(2):249–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bruce PK, Ichiro K, Roberta G, Deborah PS. Income distribution, socioeconomic status, and self-rated health in the United States: multilevel analysis. BMJ. 1998;317:917–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Roland S, Carole RG. Relations of income inequality and family income to chronic medical conditions and mental health disorders: national survey. BMJ. 2002;324:1–5.Google Scholar
  18. Robert SK, Paul HW, Bruce PK, Ichiro K. State income inequality, household income, and maternal mental and physical health: cross sectional national survey. BMJ. 2000;321:1311–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Eibner C, Evans WN. Relative deprivation, poor health habits, and mortality. J Hum Resour. 2005;40:591–620.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Peter KL, Tara L, Michael BR, Jill A, Penelope SP, et al. Income inequality and 30 day outcomes after acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2013;346:f521.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Rahman MM, Gilmour S, Saito E, Sultana P, Shibuya K. Health-related financial catastrophe, inequality and chronic illness in Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56873.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Subramanian SV, Kawachi I. Income inequality and health: what have we learned so far? Epidemiol Rev. 2004;26:78–91.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hongbin L, Yi Z. Income, income inequality, and health: evidence from China. J Comp Econ. 2006;34:668–93.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Irene OLW, Benjamin JC, Su-Vui L, Gabriel ML. A multilevel analysis of the effects of neighbourhood income inequality on individual self-rated health in Hong Kong. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68:124–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. World Health Organization. 2008-2013 Action plan for the global strategy for the prevention and control for noncommunicable diseases. Geneva: WHO Press 2008: 2–3.Google Scholar
  26. Ala A, David RM, Leanne MR, Edouard TE, Colin DM, et al. Monitoring and surveillance of chronic non-communicable diseases: progress and capacity in high-burden countries. Lancet. 2010;376(9755):1861–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. New York: Oxford University Press. 1993. 200P.Google Scholar
  28. Pappa E, Kontodimopoulos N, Papadopoulos AA, Niakas D. Assessing the socio-economic and demographic impact on health-related quality of life: evidence from Greece. Int J Public Health. 2009;54:241–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Aberg YM, Fritzell JLO, Diderichsen F, Burstrom B. Exploring relative deprivation: is social comparison a mechanism in the relation between income and health? Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:1463–73.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann Med. 2001;33:337–43.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJUS. Valuation of the EQ-5D health states-development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43:203–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Fei G, Gim-Yew Ng, Yin-Bun C, Julian T, Grace P, Wen-Hsin K, et al. The Singaporean English and Chinese versions of the EQ-5D achieved measurement equivalence in cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 206–213.Google Scholar
  33. Tan Z, Liang Y, Liu S, Cao W, Tu H, Lingxia G, et al. Health-related quality of life as measured with EQ-5D among populations with and without specific chronic conditions: a population-based survey in Shaanxi Province, China. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e65958.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Xiaoxia Y. Analysis on the income gap of Shaanxi residents and countermeasures (in Chinese). West Finance Account. 2008;2:68–71.Google Scholar
  35. Zhu YC, Huang ZJ. Analysis on the regional disarity of rural economic development in Shaanxi Province (in Chinese). J Anhui Agri Sci. 2008;36(7):2999. -3000, 3002Google Scholar
  36. Jiahua ZA. Convenient method to calculate Gini coefficient. J Shanxi Agric Univ(Social Science Edition). 2007;3(6):275–8.Google Scholar
  37. Tsuchiya A, Ikeda S, Ikegami N, Nishimura S, Sakai I, Fukuda T, et al. Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Econ. 2002;1:341–53.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Risto L, Erkki P. Practical methods for design and analysis of complex surveys. Chichester, west Sussex, England. Hoboken: J. Wiley; 2004.Google Scholar
  39. Joanna GR, Joanna T, Jacek K. Intra-provincial inequalities and economic growth in China. Econ Syst. 2010;34(3):237–58.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Chen AP. Reducing China's regional disparities: is there a growth cost? China Econ Rev. 2010;21:2–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Fang PQ, Dong SP, Xiao JJ, Liu CJ, Feng XW. Regional inequality in health and its determinants: evidence from China. Health Policy. 2010;94(1):14–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang JC, Liu JM, Wang YH, Wu CQ. Determination of Sustainability of Shaanxi Economic Development by Fortune Method. J Northwest Sci-Tech Univ Agric For. 2002;2(5):70–74.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement