Analysis of Health and Activity Limitation Index (HALex), Its Distribution, andIts Distribution by Income in Japan, 1989 and 1998,

It is a widely shared view in the population health field that the future of the analysis of population health lies in the assessment both of the length of life and health-adjusted quality of life, and the parallel examination of the average health and health distribution within a population. Using a nationally representative sample of the 1989 and 1998 wave of the Japanese Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions of the People on Health and Welfare (CSLC), this research aims to conduct such assessment of the health of Japanese people: examination of the average health-adjusted quality of life, its distribution, and its distribution by income share. This study departs from previous health inequality analyses in the following two ways: (1) construction of a health state measure in the CSLC equivalent to the Health and Activity Limitation Index (HALex) and its application to health inequality analysis, and (2) inclusion of the dead in health inequality analysis. This study found that between 1989 and 1998 overall in Japan the HALex on average slightly reduced (0.005 reduction), its inequality by income slightly reduced (0.002 reduction in the difference between the top 20% and bottom 20% income share groups), and its inequality measured by the Gini Coefficient slightly increased (0.002 increase). Women's HALex was almost always lower than men's, except in earlier ages younger than ten years old. The HALex was more unequally distributed among women than men and in older ages. This analysis shows that the success in the improvement in the length of life in Japan did not always coincide with the improvement in the health-adjusted quality of life and provides a basis for the future population health research.

The ideal of equal health revisited: definitions and measures of inequity in health should be better integrated with theories of distributive justice

The past decade witnessed great progress in research on health inequities. The most widely cited definition of health inequity is, arguably, the one proposed by Whitehead and Dahlgren: "Health inequalities that are avoidable, unnecessary, and unfair are unjust." We argue that this definition is useful but in need of further clarification because it is not linked to broader theories of justice. We propose an alternative, pluralist notion of fair distribution of health that is compatible with several theories of distributive justice. Our proposed view consists of the weak principle of health equality and the principle of fair trade-offs. The weak principle of health equality offers an alternative definition of health equity to those proposed in the past. It maintains the all-encompassing nature of the popular Whitehead/Dahlgren definition of health equity, and at the same time offers a richer philosophical foundation. This principle states that every person or group should have equal health except when: (a) health equality is only possible by making someone less healthy, or (b) there are technological limitations on further health improvement. In short, health inequalities that are amenable to positive human intervention are unfair. The principle of fair trade-offs states that weak equality of health is morally objectionable if and only if: (c) further reduction of weak inequality leads to unacceptable sacrifices of average or overall health of the population, or (d) further reduction in weak health inequality would result in unacceptable sacrifices of other important goods, such as education, employment, and social security

Strategies of Impoliteness in Japanese Spontaneous Talks

If, on the one hand, Japanese language, with its richness of marked allomorphs used for honorifics, has been considered one of the most attractive languages to investigate the phenomenon of politeness, on the other hand, a very small number of studies have been devoted to Japanese impoliteness, most of them limited to BBSs’ (Bulletin Board System) chats on Internet. Interestingly, Japanese native speakers declare, in general, that their language has a very limited number of offensive expressions and that ‘impoliteness’ is not a characteristic of their mother tongue. I tried to analyse some samples of spontaneous conversations taken from YouTube and other multimedia repertoires, in order to detect the main strategies used in Japanese real conversations to cause offence or to show a threatening attitude toward the partner’s face. It seems possible to state that, notwithstanding the different ‘cultural’ peculiarities, impoliteness shows, also in Japanese, a set of strategies common to other languages and that impoliteness, in terms of morphology, is not a mirror counterpart of keigo

A Problem with the Individual Approach in the WHO Health Inequality Measurement

BACKGROUND: In the World Health Report 2000, the World Health Organization made the controversial choice to measure inequality across individuals rather than across groups, the standard in the field. This choice has been widely discussed and criticized. DISCUSSION: We look at the three questions: (1) is the World Health Organization's health inequality measure value-free as it claims? (2) if it is not, what is the normative position implied by its approach when measuring health inequality? and (3) is the individual approach a logically consistent methodological choice for that normative position? SUMMARY: We argue that the World Health Organization's health inequality measure is not value-free. If it was, the health inequality information that the measurement collected could not reasonably be included in its ranking of how well national health systems performed. The World Health Organization's normative position can be interpreted as a quite expansive view of justice, in which health distributions that have causes amenable to human intervention are considered to be matters of justice. Our conclusion is that if the World Health Organization's health inequality measure is to be interpreted meaningfully in a policy context, its conceptual underpinning must be re-evaluated

Need-based resource allocation: different need indicators, different results?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>A key policy objective in most publicly financed health care systems is to allocate resources according to need. Many jurisdictions implement this policy objective through need-based allocation models. To date, no gold standard exists for selecting need indicators. In the absence of a gold standard, sensitivity of the choice of need indicators is of concern. The primary objective of this study was to assess the consistency and plausibility of estimates of per capita relative need for health services across Canadian provinces based on different need indicators.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using the 2000/2001 Canadian Community Health Survey, we estimated relative per capita need for general practitioner, specialist, and hospital services by province using two approaches that incorporated a different set of need indicators: (1) demographics (age and sex), and (2) demographics, socioeconomic status, and health status. For both approaches, we first fitted regression models to estimate standard utilization of each of three types of health services by indicators of need. We defined the standard as average levels of utilization by needs indicators in the national sample. Subsequently, we estimated expected per capita utilization of each type of health services in each province. We compared these estimates of per capita relative need with premature mortality in each province to check their face validity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both approaches suggested that expected relative per capita need for three services vary across provinces. Different approaches, however, yielded different and inconsistent results. Moreover, provincial per capita relative need for the three health services did not always indicate the same direction of need suggested by premature mortality in each province. In particular, the two approaches suggested Newfoundland had less need than the Canadian average for all three services, but it had the highest premature mortality in Canada.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Substantial differences in need for health care may exist across Canadian provinces, but the direction and magnitude of differences depend on the need indicators used. Allocations from models using survey data lacked face validity for some provinces. These results call for the need to better understand the biases that may result from the use of survey data for resource allocation.</p

Assessment of the health of Americans: the average health-related quality of life and its inequality across individuals and groups

BACKGROUND: The assessment of population health has traditionally relied on the population's average health measured by mortality related indicators. Researchers have increasingly recognized the importance of including information on health inequality and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in the assessment of population health. The objective of this study is to assess the health of Americans in the 1990s by describing the average HRQL and its inequality across individuals and groups. METHODS: This study uses the 1990 and 1995 National Health Interview Survey from the United States. The measure of HRQL is the Health and Activity Limitation Index (HALex). The measure of health inequality across individuals is the Gini coefficient. This study provides confidence intervals (CI) for the Gini coefficient by a bootstrap method. To describe health inequality by group, this study decomposes the overall Gini coefficient into the between-group, within-group, and overlap Gini coefficient using race (White, Black, and other) as an example. This study looks at how much contribution the overlap Gini coefficient makes to the overall Gini coefficient, in addition to the absolute mean differences between groups. RESULTS: The average HALex was the same in 1990 (0.87, 95% CI: 0.87, 0.88) and 1995 (0.87, 95% CI: 0.86, 0.87). The Gini coefficient for the HALex distribution across individuals was greater in 1995 (0.097, 95% CI: 0.096, 0.099) than 1990 (0.092, 95% CI: 0.091, 0.094). Differences in the average HALex between all racial groups were the same in 1995 as 1990. The contribution of the overlap to the overall Gini coefficient was greater in 1995 than in 1990 by 2.4%. In both years, inequality between racial groups accounted only for 4–5% of overall inequality. CONCLUSION: The average HRQL of Americans was the same in 1990 and 1995, but inequality in HRQL across individuals was greater in 1995 than 1990. Inequality in HRQL by race was smaller in 1995 than 1990 because race had smaller effect on the way health was distributed in 1995 than 1990. Analysis of the average HRQL and its inequality provides information on the health of a population invisible in the traditional analysis of population health