Retirements of Coal and Oil Power Plants in California: Association With Reduced Preterm Birth Among Populations Nearby.

Coal and oil power plant retirements reduce air pollution nearby, but few studies have leveraged these natural experiments for public health research. We used California Department of Public Health birth records and US Energy Information Administration data from 2001-2011 to evaluate the relationship between the retirements of 8 coal and oil power plants and nearby preterm (gestational age of <37 weeks) birth. We conducted a difference-in-differences analysis using adjusted linear mixed models that included 57,005 births-6.3% of which were preterm-to compare the probability of preterm birth before and after power plant retirement among mothers residing within 0-5 km and 5-10 km of the 8 power plants. We found that power plant retirements were associated with a decrease in the proportion of preterm birth within 5 km (-0.019, 95% CI: -0.031, -0.008) and 5-10 km (-0.015, 95% CI: -0.024, -0.007), controlling for secular trends with mothers living 10-20 km away. For the 0-5-km area, this corresponds to a reduction in preterm birth from 7.0% to 5.1%. Subgroup analyses indicated a potentially larger association among non-Hispanic black and Asian mothers than among non-Hispanic white and Hispanic mothers and no differences in educational attainment. Future coal and oil power plant retirements may reduce preterm birth among nearby populations.

Latina Birth Outcomes in California: Not so Paradoxical.

Objectives To investigate Latina-White differences in birth outcomes in California from 2003 to 2010, looking for evidence of the often-cited "Latina paradox" and assessing the possible role of socioeconomic factors in observed differences. MethodsUsing statewide-representative data from the California Maternal and Infant Health Assessment, an annual population-based postpartum survey, we compared rates of preterm birth (PTB) and low birth weight (LBW) in five groups: U.S.-born non-Latina Whites ("Whites"), U.S.-born Mexican-Americans, U.S.-born non-Mexican Latinas, Mexican immigrants, and non-Mexican Latina immigrants. Logistic regression models examined the relative likelihood of PTB and LBW for women in each Latina subgroup compared with Whites, before and after adjustment for socioeconomic and other covariates. Results In unadjusted analyses, women in each Latina subgroup appeared more likely than White women to have PTB and LBW, although the increased likelihood of LBW among Mexican immigrants was statistically non-significant. After adjustment for less favorable socioeconomic characteristics among Latinas compared with Whites, observed differences in the estimated likelihoods of PTB or LBW for Latina subgroups relative to Whites were attenuated and (with the exception of PTB among U.S.-born Mexican Americans) no longer statistically significant. Conclusions We found no evidence of a "Latina paradox" in birth outcomes, which some have cited as evidence that social disadvantage is not always health-damaging. As observed in several previous studies, our findings were non-paradoxical: consistent with their socioeconomic disadvantage, Latinas had worse birth outcomes than non-Latina White women. Policy-makers should not rely on a "Latina paradox" to ensure good birth outcomes among socioeconomically disadvantaged Latina women.

The role of socioeconomic factors in Black-White disparities in preterm birth.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the role of socioeconomic factors in Black-White disparities in preterm birth (PTB). METHODS: We used the population-based California Maternal and Infant Health Assessment survey and birth certificate data on 10 400 US-born Black and White California residents who gave birth during 2003 to 2010 to examine rates and relative likelihoods of PTB among Black versus White women, with adjustment for multiple socioeconomic factors and covariables. RESULTS: Greater socioeconomic advantage was generally associated with lower PTB rates among White but not Black women. There were no significant Black-White disparities within the most socioeconomically disadvantaged subgroups; Black-White disparities were seen only within more advantaged subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic factors play an important but complex role in PTB disparities. The absence of Black-White disparities in PTB within certain socioeconomic subgroups, alongside substantial disparities within others, suggests that social factors moderate the disparity. Further research should explore social factors suggested by the literature-including life course socioeconomic experiences and racism-related stress, and the biological pathways through which they operate-as potential contributors to PTB among Black and White women with different levels of social advantage.

Systemic And Structural Racism: Definitions, Examples, Health Damages, And Approaches To Dismantling.

Racism is not always conscious, explicit, or readily visible-often it is systemic and structural. Systemic and structural racism are forms of racism that are pervasively and deeply embedded in systems, laws, written or unwritten policies, and entrenched practices and beliefs that produce, condone, and perpetuate widespread unfair treatment and oppression of people of color, with adverse health consequences. Examples include residential segregation, unfair lending practices and other barriers to home ownership and accumulating wealth, schools' dependence on local property taxes, environmental injustice, biased policing and sentencing of men and boys of color, and voter suppression policies. This article defines systemic and structural racism, using examples; explains how they damage health through many causal pathways; and suggests approaches to dismantling them. Because systemic and structural racism permeate all sectors and areas, addressing them will require mutually reinforcing actions in multiple sectors and places; acknowledging their existence is a crucial first step.

Health disparities and health equity: the issue is justice.

Eliminating health disparities is a Healthy People goal. Given the diverse and sometimes broad definitions of health disparities commonly used, a subcommittee convened by the Secretary's Advisory Committee for Healthy People 2020 proposed an operational definition for use in developing objectives and targets, determining resource allocation priorities, and assessing progress. Based on that subcommittee's work, we propose that health disparities are systematic, plausibly avoidable health differences adversely affecting socially disadvantaged groups; they may reflect social disadvantage, but causality need not be established. This definition, grounded in ethical and human rights principles, focuses on the subset of health differences reflecting social injustice, distinguishing health disparities from other health differences also warranting concerted attention, and from health differences in general. We explain the definition, its underlying concepts, the challenges it addresses, and the rationale for applying it to United States public health policy.

Father's education: an independent marker of risk for preterm birth.

To explore the association between paternal education and preterm birth, taking into account maternal social and economic factors. We analyzed data from a population-based cross-sectional postpartum survey, linked with birth certificates, of women who gave birth in California from 1999 through 2005 (n = 21,712). Women whose infants' fathers had not completed college had significantly higher odds of preterm birth than women whose infants' fathers were college graduates, even after adjusting for maternal education and family income [OR (95% CI) = 1.26 (1.01-1.58)]. The effect of paternal education was greater among unmarried women than among married women. Paternal education may represent an important indicator of risk for preterm birth, reflecting social and/or economic factors not measured by maternal education or family income. Researchers and policy makers committed to understanding and reducing socioeconomic disparities in birth outcomes should consider paternal as well as maternal socioeconomic factors in their analyses and policy decisions.

Socioeconomic disparities in health in the United States: what the patterns tell us.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe socioeconomic disparities in the United States across multiple health indicators and socioeconomic groups. METHODS: Using recent national data on 5 child (infant mortality, health status, activity limitation, healthy eating, sedentary adolescents) and 6 adult (life expectancy, health status, activity limitation, heart disease, diabetes, obesity) health indicators, we examined indicator rates across multiple income or education categories, overall and within racial/ethnic groups. RESULTS: Those with the lowest income and who were least educated were consistently least healthy, but for most indicators, even groups with intermediate income and education levels were less healthy than the wealthiest and most educated. Gradient patterns were seen often among non-Hispanic Blacks and Whites but less consistently among Hispanics. CONCLUSIONS: Health in the United States is often, though not invariably, patterned strongly along both socioeconomic and racial/ethnic lines, suggesting links between hierarchies of social advantage and health. Worse health among the most socially disadvantaged argues for policies prioritizing those groups, but pervasive gradient patterns also indicate a need to address a wider socioeconomic spectrum-which may help garner political support. Routine health reporting should examine socioeconomic and racial/ethnic disparity patterns, jointly and separately.

Most pregnant women in California do not receive dental care: findings from a population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: We examined the prevalence of dental care during pregnancy and reasons for lack of care. METHODS: Using a population-based survey of 21,732 postpartum women in California during 2002-2007, we calculated prevalence of dental problems, receipt of care, and reasons for non-receipt of care. We used logistic regression to estimate odds of non-receipt of care by maternal characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 65% of women had no dental visit during pregnancy; 52% reported a dental problem prenatally, with 62% of those women not receiving care. After adjustment, factors associated with non-receipt of care included non-European American race/ethnicity, lack of a college degree, lack of private prenatal insurance, no first-trimester prenatal insurance coverage, lower income, language other than English spoken at home, and no usual source of pre-pregnancy medical care. The primary reason stated for non-receipt of dental care was lack of perceived need, followed by financial barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Most pregnant women in this study received insufficient dental care. Odds were elevated not only among the poorest, least educated mothers, but also among those with moderate incomes or some college education. The need for dental care during pregnancy must be promoted widely among both the public and providers, and financial barriers to dental care should be addressed.

Swimming Against the Tide: Challenges in Pursuing Health Equity Today.

The term "health equity" has moved from obscurity to the mainstream, creating new possibilities for those who aspire to a world in which everyone has a fair and just opportunity to be healthy. One can now talk explicitly about health equity. The newfound acceptance, however, carries a risk: loss of meaning. Recognizing the need for a common understanding of the core concepts, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has promoted a definition that prioritizes being sufficiently concrete to guide action. Lack of conceptual clarity is, unfortunately, not the only challenge in pursuing health equity. Another challenge is the lack of respect for fundamental ethical and human rights principles-cornerstones of health equity-displayed almost daily by those in positions of power, including the president; this lack of commitment to fundamental values has an insidiously toxic effect because many people assume that presidential views must be legitimate. Yet another challenge is lack of imagination. Pursuing health equity inevitably requires swimming against the tide of prevailing forces that exclude, marginalize, or otherwise disadvantage groups of people based on their skin color, wealth, gender, disabilities, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or other characteristics tightly linked with social advantage. To persist in swimming against the tide, the end goal and the reason for pursuing it must be very strong and very clear. Academic medicine can play an important role as a powerful force in setting norms and shaping the values and attitudes of medical students, attending physicians, and research faculty.

Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all.

Problems with measuring socioeconomic status (SES)-frequently included in clinical and public health studies as a control variable and less frequently as the variable(s) of main interest-could affect research findings and conclusions, with implications for practice and policy. We critically examine standard SES measurement approaches, illustrating problems with examples from new analyses and the literature. For example, marked racial/ethnic differences in income at a given educational level and in wealth at a given income level raise questions about the socioeconomic comparability of individuals who are similar on education or income alone. Evidence also shows that conclusions about nonsocioeconomic causes of racial/ethnic differences in health may depend on the measure-eg, income, wealth, education, occupation, neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics, or past socioeconomic experiences-used to "control for SES," suggesting that findings from studies that have measured limited aspects of SES should be reassessed. We recommend an outcome- and social group-specific approach to SES measurement that involves (1) considering plausible explanatory pathways and mechanisms, (2) measuring as much relevant socioeconomic information as possible, (3) specifying the particular socioeconomic factors measured (rather than SES overall), and (4) systematically considering how potentially important unmeasured socioeconomic factors may affect conclusions. Better SES measures are needed in data sources, but improvements could be made by using existing information more thoughtfully and acknowledging its limitations.

Monitoring equity in health and healthcare: a conceptual framework.

This paper aims at articulating a conceptual framework for monitoring equity in health and healthcare. The focus is on four main questions: What is health equity? What is monitoring? What are the essential components of a system for monitoring health equity? and Why monitor health equity? Monitoring equity in health and healthcare requires comparing indicators of health and its social determinants among social groups with different levels of underlying social advantage, i.e. groups who occupy different positions in a social hierarchy. A framework is presented for formulating the key questions, defining the social groups to be compared, and selecting the health indicators and measures of disparity that are fundamental to monitoring health equity. Although monitoring health equity is a scientific endeavour, its fundamental objective is guided by values; technical challenges should be addressed as part of a broader strategy to confront the political obstacles to greater equity.

Global Equity Gauge Alliance: reflections on early experiences.

The paper traces the evolution and working of the Global Equity Gauge Alliance (GEGA) and its efforts to promote health equity. GEGA places health equity squarely within a larger framework of social justice, linking findings on socioeconomic and health inequalities with differentials in power, wealth, and prestige in society. The Alliance's 11 country-level partners, called Equity Gauges, share a common action-based vision and framework called the Equity Gauge Strategy. An Equity Gauge seeks to reduce health inequities through three broad spheres of action, referred to as the 'pillars' of the Equity Gauge Strategy, which define a set of interconnected and overlapping actions. Measuring and tracking the inequalities and interpreting their ethical import are pursued through the Assessment and Monitoring pillar. This information provides an evidence base that can be used in strategic ways for influencing policy-makers through actions in the Advocacy pillar and for supporting grassroots groups and civil society through actions in the Community Empowerment pillar. The paper provides examples of strategies for promoting pro-equity policy and social change and reviews experiences and lessons, both in terms of technical success of interventions and in relation to the conceptual development and refinement of the Equity Gauge Strategy and overall direction of the Alliance. To become most effective in furthering health equity at both national and global levels, the Alliance must now reach out to and involve a wider range of organizations, groups, and actors at both national and international levels. Sustainability of this promising experiment depends, in part, on adequate resources but also on the ability to attract and develop talented leadership.

Do wealth disparities contribute to health disparities within racial/ethnic groups?

BACKGROUND: Though wide disparities in wealth have been documented across racial/ethnic groups, it is largely unknown whether differences in wealth are associated with health disparities within racial/ethnic groups. METHODS: Data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (2004, ages 25-64) and the Health and Retirement Survey (2004, ages 50+), containing a wide range of assets and debts variables, were used to calculate net worth (a standard measure of wealth). Among non-Hispanic black, Hispanic and non-Hispanic white populations, we tested whether wealth was associated with self-reported poor/fair health status after accounting for income and education. RESULTS: Except among the younger Hispanic population, net worth was significantly associated with poor/fair health status within each racial/ethnic group in both data sets. Adding net worth attenuated the association between education and poor/fair health (in all racial/ethnic groups) and between income and poor/fair health (except among older Hispanics). CONCLUSIONS: The results add to the literature indicating the importance of including measures of wealth in health research for what they may reveal about disparities not only between but also within different racial/ethnic groups.

Socioeconomic factors and health risk behaviors among adolescents.

OBJECTIVES: To examine relationships between a wide range of socioeconomic factors, race/ethnicity, and adolescent risk behaviors. METHODS: The Youth Asset Study (N = 1111) was used to examine multivariate relationships between sexual initiation, alcohol use, tobacco use, and drug use and 8 socioeconomic factors. RESULTS: Socioeconomic factors beyond income and parental education (eg, wealth) were associated with some health behaviors depending upon gender. However, we did not find that a wider range of factors helped us better understand racial/ethnic disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Even the more comprehensive set of socioeconomic factors considered may not accurately capture the underlying construct of adolescent SES.

When do we know enough to recommend action on the social determinants of health?

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission to Build a Healthier America was charged to identify strategies beyond medical care to address health disparities in the U.S. related to social and economic disadvantage. Based on insights gained while providing scientific support for the commission's efforts, this paper presents an overview of major issues that arise when assessing evidence to inform policies and programs to address the social determinants of health. While many of the insights are not new, they have not been widely assimilated within medicine and public health. They have particular relevance now, given growing awareness of the important health influences of social factors. The discussion presented here is intended to highlight key considerations for researchers who study social determinants of health and policymakers whose decisions are shaped by research findings. Policies should be based on the best available knowledge, derived from diverse sources and methods. An array of tools and guidelines is now available to guide the assessment of evidence on the social determinants of health, building on--and going beyond--principles first articulated in the "Evidence-Based Medicine" movement. The central thesis of the current paper is that the standards for evidence to guide social policies must be equally rigorous but also more comprehensive than those traditionally used to inform clinical interventions, because social policies must deal with upstream factors that affect health through complex causal pathways over potentially long time periods.

Socioeconomic disparities in adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Adverse birth outcomes, such as preterm birth and low birth weight, have serious health consequences across the life course. Socioeconomic disparities in birth outcomes have not been the subject of a recent systematic review. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature on the association of socioeconomic disadvantage with adverse birth outcomes, with specific attention to the strength and consistency of effects across socioeconomic measures, birth outcomes, and populations. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant articles published from 1999 to 2007 were obtained through electronic database searches and manual searches of reference lists. English-language studies from industrialized countries were included if (1) study objectives included examination of a socioeconomic disparity in a birth outcome and (2) results were presented on the association between a socioeconomic predictor and a birth outcome related to birth weight, gestational age, or intrauterine growth. Two reviewers extracted data and independently rated study quality; data were analyzed in 2008-2009. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ninety-three of 106 studies reported a significant association, overall or within a population subgroup, between a socioeconomic measure and a birth outcome. Socioeconomic disadvantage was consistently associated with increased risk across socioeconomic measures, birth outcomes, and countries; many studies observed racial/ethnic differences in the effect of socioeconomic measures. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic differences in birth outcomes remain pervasive, with substantial variation by racial or ethnic subgroup, and are associated with disadvantage measured at multiple levels (individual/family, neighborhood) and time points (childhood, adulthood), and with adverse health behaviors that are themselves socially patterned. Future reviews should focus on identifying interventions to successfully reduce socioeconomic disparities in birth outcomes.

Early postnatal care among healthy newborns in 19 States: pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system, 2000.

OBJECTIVE: To examine early postnatal care among healthy newborns during 2000 in 19 states. METHODS: Using data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, a multistate population-based postpartum survey of women, we calculated prevalences of early discharge (ED; stays of < or =2 days after vaginal delivery and < or =4 days after Cesarean delivery) and early follow-up (within 1 week) after ED. We used logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) describing how ED and lack of early follow-up were associated with state legislation and maternal characteristics. RESULTS: While most healthy term newborns (83.5-93.4%) were discharged early, and most early-discharged newborns (51.5-88.5%) received recommended early follow-up, substantial proportions of early-discharged newborns did not. Compared with newborns in states where legislation covered both length of hospital stay (LOS) and follow-up, newborns in states without such legislation were more likely to have ED (aOR: 1.25; CI: 1.01-1.56). Lack of early follow-up was more likely among newborns in states with neither LOS nor follow-up legislation (aOR: 2.70, CI: 2.32-3.14), and only LOS legislation (aOR: 1.38, CI: 1.22-1.56) compared with those in states with legislation for both. ED was more likely among newborns born to multiparous women and those delivered by Cesarean section and less likely among those born to black and Hispanic mothers and mothers with less education. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of early follow-up among ED newborns remains a problem, particularly in states without relevant legislation. These findings indicate the need for continued monitoring and for programmatic and policy strategies to improve receipt of recommended care.