Le médecin face aux inégalités sociales de santé: quel pouvoir d'action [General practitioners facing social inequalities in health: which power to act?].

The link between social inequalities and health has been known for many years, as attested by Villermé's work on the "mental and physical status of the working class" (1840). We have more and more insight into the nature of this relationship, which embraces not only material deprivation, but also psychological mechanisms related to social and interpersonal problems. Defining our possible role as physicians to fight against these inequalities has become a public health priority. Instruments and leads, which are now available to help us in our daily practice, are presented here.

Medical demography and intergenerational inequalities in general practitioners' earnings

This article examines the link between restrictions on the number of physicians and general practitioners' (GPs) earnings. Using a representative panel of 6016 French self-employed GPs over the years 1983-2004, we estimate an earnings function to identify experience, time and cohort effects. The estimated gap in earnings between 'good' and 'bad' cohorts can be as large as 25%. GPs who began their practices during the eighties have the lowest permanent earnings: they belong to the large cohorts of the baby-boom and face the consequences of an unlimited number of places in medical schools. Conversely, the decrease in the number of places in medical schools led to an increase in permanent earnings of GPs who began their practices in the mid-nineties. A stochastic dominance analysis shows that unobserved heterogeneity does not compensate for average differences in earnings between cohorts. These findings suggest that the first years of practice are decisive for a GP. If competition between physicians is too intense at the beginning of their careers, they will suffer from permanently lower earnings. To conclude, our results show that the policies aimed at reducing the number of medical students succeeded in buoying up physicians' permanent earnings. [Ed.]

Contribution of modifiable risk factors to social inequalities in type 2 diabetes: prospective Whitehall II cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the contribution of modifiable risk factors to social inequalities in the incidence of type 2 diabetes when these factors are measured at study baseline or repeatedly over follow-up and when long term exposure is accounted for. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with risk factors (health behaviours (smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, and physical activity), body mass index, and biological risk markers (systolic blood pressure, triglycerides and high density lipoprotein cholesterol)) measured four times and diabetes status assessed seven times between 1991-93 and 2007-09. SETTING: Civil service departments in London (Whitehall II study). PARTICIPANTS: 7237 adults without diabetes (mean age 49.4 years; 2196 women). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of type 2 diabetes and contribution of risk factors to its association with socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Over a mean follow-up of 14.2 years, 818 incident cases of diabetes were identified. Participants in the lowest occupational category had a 1.86-fold (hazard ratio 1.86, 95% confidence interval 1.48 to 2.32) greater risk of developing diabetes relative to those in the highest occupational category. Health behaviours and body mass index explained 33% (-1% to 78%) of this socioeconomic differential when risk factors were assessed at study baseline (attenuation of hazard ratio from 1.86 to 1.51), 36% (22% to 66%) when they were assessed repeatedly over the follow-up (attenuated hazard ratio 1.48), and 45% (28% to 75%) when long term exposure over the follow-up was accounted for (attenuated hazard ratio 1.41). With additional adjustment for biological risk markers, a total of 53% (29% to 88%) of the socioeconomic differential was explained (attenuated hazard ratio 1.35, 1.05 to 1.72). CONCLUSIONS: Modifiable risk factors such as health behaviours and obesity, when measured repeatedly over time, explain almost half of the social inequalities in incidence of type 2 diabetes. This is more than was seen in previous studies based on single measurement of risk factors.

Médecine sociate en 2013: quand la précarité précède la pauvrete [Social medicine: does it still make sense in 2013?].

Social medicine is a medicine that seeks to understand the impact of socio-economic conditions on human health and diseases in order to improve the health of a society and its individuals. In this field of medicine, determining the socio-economic status of individuals is generally not sufficient to explain and/or understand the underlying mechanisms leading to social inequalities in health. Other factors must be considered such as environmental, psychosocial, behavioral and biological factors that, together, can lead to more or less permanent damages to the health of the individuals in a society. In a time where considerable progresses have been made in the field of the biomedicine, does the practice of social medicine in a primary care setting still make sense?

The NLRP3 inflammasome in health and disease: the good, the bad and the ugly.

While interleukin (IL)-1β plays an important role in combating the invading pathogen as part of the innate immune response, its dysregulation is responsible for a number of autoinflammatory disorders. Large IL-1β activating platforms, known as inflammasomes, can assemble in response to the detection of endogenous host and pathogen-associated danger molecules. Formation of these protein complexes results in the autocatalysis and activation of caspase-1, which processes precursor IL-1β into its secreted biologically active form. Inflammasome and IL-1β activity is required to efficiently control viral, bacterial and fungal pathogen infections. Conversely, excess IL-1β activity contributes to human disease, and its inhibition has proved therapeutically beneficial in the treatment of a spectrum of serious, yet relatively rare, heritable inflammasomopathies. Recently, inflammasome function has been implicated in more common human conditions, such as gout, type II diabetes and cancer. This raises the possibility that anti-IL-1 therapeutics may have broader applications than anticipated previously, and may be utilized across diverse disease states that are linked insidiously through unwanted or heightened inflammasome activity.

Médecine sociale en 2013 : quand la précarité précède la pauvreté [Social medicine : does it still make sense in 2013?]

Social medicine is a medicine that seeks to understand the impact of socio-economic conditions on human health and diseases in order to improve the health of a society and its individuals. In this field of medicine, determining the socio-economic status of individuals is generally not sufficient to explain and/or understand the underlying mechanisms leading to social inequalities in health. Other factors must be considered such as environmental, psychosocial, behavioral and biological factors that, together, can lead to more or less permanent damages to the health of the individuals in a society. In a time where considerable progresses have been made in the field of the biomedicine, does the practice of social medicine in a primary care setting still make sense? La médecine sociale est une médecine qui cherche à comprendre l'impact des conditions socio-économiques sur la santé humaine et les maladies, dans la perspective d'améliorer l'état de santé d'une société et de ses individus. Dans ce domaine, la détermination du statut socio-économique des individus ne suffit généralement pas à elle seule pour expliquer et comprendre les mécanismes qui sous-tendent les inégalités sociales de santé. D'autres facteurs doivent être pris en considération, tels que les facteurs environnementaux, psychosociaux, comportementaux et biologiques, facteurs qui peuvent conduire de manière synergique à des atteintes plus ou moins durables de l'état de santé des individus d'une société. A une époque où les connaissances, les compétences et les moyens à disposition en biomédecine ont fait des progrès considérables, la pratique de la médecine sociale en cabinet a-t-elle encore sa place en 2013?

Variations régionales du recours aux soins: quelques problèmes méthodologiques. [Regional variations in health services: various methodological problems].

Many studies show strong variation of health consumption between regions, suggesting that theses variations are related to the uncertainty of medical practice or to other factors related to health services or patients attitude. However the statistical interpretation of these variations is far from easy: apart from usual and specific information bias, there are statistical problems when observing incidence of events like health care consumption: it is in fact a rare event, which is observed within small population, and among regions with unequal number of person. Therefore, most of the variation reported might be well explained by a purely statistical phenomenon. This paper presents some aspects of this variability for three common indicators of variation, and suggest the use of ad hoc simulation to get statistical criteria.

Health behaviours, socioeconomic status, and mortality: further analyses of the British Whitehall II and the French GAZEL prospective cohorts

BACKGROUND: Differences in morbidity and mortality between socioeconomic groups constitute one of the most consistent findings of epidemiologic research. However, research on social inequalities in health has yet to provide a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms underlying this association. In recent analysis, we showed health behaviours, assessed longitudinally over the follow-up, to explain a major proportion of the association of socioeconomic status (SES) with mortality in the British Whitehall II study. However, whether health behaviours are equally important mediators of the SES-mortality association in different cultural settings remains unknown. In the present paper, we examine this issue in Whitehall II and another prospective European cohort, the French GAZEL study. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included 9,771 participants from the Whitehall II study and 17,760 from the GAZEL study. Over the follow-up (mean 19.5 y in Whitehall II and 16.5 y in GAZEL), health behaviours (smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, and physical activity), were assessed longitudinally. Occupation (in the main analysis), education, and income (supplementary analysis) were the markers of SES. The socioeconomic gradient in smoking was greater (p<0.001) in Whitehall II (odds ratio [OR] = 3.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.11-4.36) than in GAZEL (OR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.18-1.49); this was also true for unhealthy diet (OR = 7.42, 95% CI 5.19-10.60 in Whitehall II and OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.15-1.49 in GAZEL, p<0.001). Socioeconomic differences in mortality were similar in the two cohorts, a hazard ratio of 1.62 (95% CI 1.28-2.05) in Whitehall II and 1.94 in GAZEL (95% CI 1.58-2.39) for lowest versus highest occupational position. Health behaviours attenuated the association of SES with mortality by 75% (95% CI 44%-149%) in Whitehall II but only by 19% (95% CI 13%-29%) in GAZEL. Analysis using education and income yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Health behaviours were strong predictors of mortality in both cohorts but their association with SES was remarkably different. Thus, health behaviours are likely to be major contributors of socioeconomic differences in health only in contexts with a marked social characterisation of health behaviours. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.