Life Expectancy and All Age All Cause Mortality Monitoring (Overall and Health Inequalities) - Update to include data for 2007

The latest annual update on life expectancy data and all age all cause mortality rates, with data updated to 2005-07, which are used to monitor progress against Department of Health targets for overall life expectancy in England, and for the gap in life expectancy between the areas with the worst health and deprivation indicators (the Spearhead group) and the England average, was released on 13th November 2008 according to the arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority.

Mortality target monitoring (life expectancy and all-age all-cause mortality, overall and inequalities)

The latest annual update on life expectancy data and all age all cause mortality rates, with data updated to 2006-08, which are used to monitor progress against Department of Health targets for overall life expectancy in England, and for the gap in life expectancy between the areas with the worst health and deprivation indicators (the Spearhead group) and the England average, was released on 5th November 2009 according to the arrangements approved by the UK Statistics Authority. �� The key points from the latest release are: �� - The overall life expectancy and all age all cause mortality (AAACM) trends for both males and females are broadly on course to deliver the target of 78.6 years for men and 82.5 years for women by 2010 (2009-11). �� - In 2006-08, life expectancy at birth in England continued to increase for both males and females, and reached its highest level on record at 77.7 years for males and 81.9 years for females. �� - Three-year average AAACM rates for England have fallen in each period since 1995-97. �� - In 2006-08, average life expectancy at birth in the Spearhead Group was 75.8 years for males and 80.4 years for females, having increased in each period since 1995-97. �� - However, England average life expectancy at birth has increased more quickly over this period, and, in 2006-08, the relative gap ��� i.e. percentage difference - in life expectancy at birth between England and the Spearhead Group was wider than at the baseline for the target (1995-97) for both males and females. �� - For males the relative gap was 7% wider than at the baseline (compared with 4% wider in 2005-07), for females 14% wider (compared with 11% wider in 2005-07).�� �� Therefore, the target to narrow the life expectancy gap between the Spearhead Group and the England average, by at least 10% by 2010, remains challenging.��Three-year average AAACM rates for the Spearhead Group have fallen in each period since 1995-97 for both males and females. Download Mortality target monitoring (life expectancy and all-age all-cause mortality, overall and inequalities): update to include data for 2008 (PDF, 683K)Download pre-release access list (PDF, 10k)��

Health Inequality Profiles 2008 - All age, all cause standardised vs. EoE

DSRs (with CIs) for All age, all cause mortality 2001-03 to 2005-07, by gender, for Counties/UAs, County quintiles, County 80/20 standardises - as in previous years - against East of England Census 2001 population.

Health Inequalities: NI Health % Social Care Inequalities Monitoring System - Regional 2014

Key Points: Health outcomes are generally worse in the most deprived areas in Northern Ireland when compared both with those witnessed in the region generally and in the least deprived areas. Large differences (health inequality gaps) continue to exist for a number of different health measures. åá Males in the 20% most deprived areas could expect, on average, to live 4.3 fewer years than the NI average and 7.3 fewer years than those in the 20% least deprived areas.åá Female life expectancy in the most deprived areas was 2.6 years less than the regional average and 4.3 years less than that in the least deprived areas.åá The overall death rate for males as measured by the All Age All Cause Mortality (AAACM) rate was a fifth higher in the most deprived areas (1,567 deaths per 100,000 population) than the NI average (1,304 deaths per 100,000 population), and 44% higher than in the least deprived areas (1,090 deaths per 100,000 population).åá The overall death rate for females (AAACM) in the most deprived areas (1,093 deaths per 100,000 population) was 17% higher than regionally (935 deaths per 100,000 population), and a third higher than in the least deprived areas (829 deaths per 100,000 population).åá The suicide rate in the most deprived areas (30.7 deaths per 100,000 population) was three times that in the least deprived areas (10.1 deaths per 100,000 population). All HSCIMS reports are published on the Departmental website at: http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/index/statistics/health-inequalities.htm

Ecstasy can cause brain damage

This poster informs about the dangers of Ecstasy stating: 'Medical research proves that Ecstasy can cause brain damage. Deny it all you like, but you know it won't wash'.

Does income inequality cause health and social problems?

Key points• The literature shows general agreement about a correlation between income inequality and health/social problems. • There is less agreement about whether income inequality causes health and social problems independently of other factors, but some rigorous studies have found evidence of this. • The independent effect of income inequality on health/social problems shown in some studies looks small in statistical terms. But these studies cover whole populations, and hence a significant number of lives. • Some research suggests that inequality is particularly harmful beyond a certain threshold. Britain was below this threshold in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s, but rose past it in 1986–7 and has settled well above it since 1998–9. If the threshold is significant it could provide a target for policy. • Anxiety about status might explain income inequality’s effect on health and social problems. If so, inequality is harmful because it places people in a hierarchy which increases competition for status, causing stress and leading to poor health and other negative outcomes. • Not all research shows an independent effect of income inequality on health/social problems. Some highlights the role of individual income (poverty/material circumstances), culture/history, ethnicity and welfare state institutions/social policies. • The author concludes that there is a strong case for further research on income inequality and discussion of the policy implications.This resource was contributed by The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use.