[Poverty and Health: The Living Standard Approach as a Supplementary Concept to Measure Relative Poverty. Results from the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP 2011)]. / Armut und Gesundheit: Der Lebensstandardansatz als ergänzendes Messinstrument relativer Armut. Ergebnisse aus dem Sozio-ökonomischen Panel (SOEP 2011).

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A common indicator of the measurement of relative poverty is the disposable income of a household. Current research introduces the living standard approach as an alternative concept for describing and measuring relative poverty. This study compares both approaches with regard to subjective health status of the German population, and provides theoretical implications for the utilisation of the income and living standard approach in health research. METHODS: Analyses are based on the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) from the year 2011 that includes 12 290 private households and 21106 survey members. Self-rated health was based on a subjective assessment of general health status. Income poverty is based on the equalised disposable income and is applied to a threshold of 60% of the median-based average income. A person will be denoted as deprived (inadequate living standard) if 3 or more out of 11 living standard items are lacking due to financial reasons. To calculate the discriminate power of both poverty indicators, descriptive analyses and stepwise logistic regression models were applied separately for men and women adjusted for age, residence, nationality, educational level, occupational status and marital status. RESULTS: The results of the stepwise regression revealed a stronger poverty-health relationship for the living standard indicator. After adjusting for all control variables and the respective poverty indicator, income poverty was statistically not significantly associated with a poor subjective health status among men (OR Men 1.33; 95% CI 1.00-1.77) and women (OR Women 0.98; 95% CI 0.78-1.22). In contrast, the association between deprivation and subjective health status was statistically significant for men (OR Men 2.00; 95% CI 1.57-2.52) and women (OR Women 2.11; 95% CI 1.76-2.64). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study indicate that the income and standard of living approach measure different dimensions of poverty. In comparison to the income approach, the living standard approach measures stronger shortages of wealth and is relatively robust towards gender differences. This study expands the current debate about complementary research on the association between poverty and health.