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.

More Equal Societies do Better

Greater income equality - the key to tackling health and social problems Everyone living in Ireland, North and South, could lead happier, healthier and longer lives if measures were put in place to achieve greater income equality according to the authors of 'The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better'. Prof Richard Wilkinson and Dr. Kate Pickett will present their findings showing how greater income equality in rich countries is key to reducing social problems and improving health. 'The Spirit Level' highlights how more unequal societies are bad for almost everyone - rich as well as poor. It demonstrates that nearly every modern social and health problem - obesity, lack of community life, violence, drugs, mental illness and big prison populations - are more likely to occur in a less equal society. IPH Chief Executive, Dr. Jane Wilde said "The evidence shows the need to change from being focused on the pursuit of greater wealth to how existing wealth can be more evenly distributed. The current economic climate presents real opportunity to reflect on what we value in society, to learn from mistakes and make plans to move towards communities that are better for everyone."

Report Against Drugs- an action plan to combat substance abuse in Longford.

The Forum for Longford was started in 1997 to provide a co-ordinated inter-agency approach to identify and help tackle social problems in Longford. A survey was carried out with 1,331 post-primary students to ascertain attitudes and behaviours towards alcohol, smoking and drug use. Of the pupils interviewed, 64% had taken an alcoholic drink at age 15 or younger; of these 73% had their first drink between the ages of 12 to 15. Of those that had experience of alcohol, 51% drank several times a week or daily. For smoking, 67% had smoked a cigarette; of these 8% smoked 5 or more daily. Of those that smoked, 47% began between the ages of 11 to 14. With regard to illegal drugs 27% had used cannabis, 20% had used inhalants, 10% hallucinogens, 9% amphetamines and 7.4% had used ecstasy. Following on form these findings, the report makes several recommendations, including the formation of a community task force, Garda/ neighbourhood watch response, schools prevention and information. Also among these key areas are the role of parents, the needs of young people and facilities for young people.This resource was contributed by The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use.

Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations.

Excessive drinking contributes significantly to social problems, physical and psychological illness, injury and death. Hidden effects include increased levels of violence, accidents and suicide. Most alcohol-related harm is caused by excessive drinkers whose consumption exceeds recommended drinking levels, not the drinkers with severe alcohol dependency problems. One way to reduce consumption levels in a community may be to provide a brief intervention in primary care over one to four sessions. This is provided by healthcare workers such as general physicians, nurses or psychologists. In general practice, patients are routinely asked about alcohol consumption during registration, general health checks and as part of health screening (using a questionnaire). They tend not to be seeking help for alcohol problems when presenting. The intervention they are offered includes feedback on alcohol use and harms, identification of high risk situations for drinking and coping strategies, increased motivation and the development of a personal plan to reduce drinking. It takes place within the time-frame of a standard consultation, 5 to 15 minutes for a general physician, longer for a nurse.A total of 29 controlled trials from various countries were identified, in general practice (24 trials) or an emergency setting (five trials). Participants drank an average of 306 grams of alcohol (over 30 standard drinks) per week on entry to the trial. Over 7000 participants with a mean age of 43 years were randomised to receive a brief intervention or a control intervention, including assessment only. After one year or more, people who received the brief intervention drank less alcohol than people in the control group (average difference 38 grams/week, range 23 to 54 grams). For men (some 70% of participants), the benefit of brief intervention was a difference of 57 grams/week, range 25 to 89 grams (six trials). The benefit was not clear for women. The benefits of brief intervention were similar in the normal clinical setting and in research settings with greater resources. Longer counselling had little additional benefit.This resource was contributed by The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use.