English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Is the use of self-rated health measures to assess health inequalities misleading? In three studies published in IJE, 1–3 authors examined whether the association between self-rated health (SRH) and mortality varied by socioeconomic status (SES). They then used the empirical results to comment on the potential discordance in the magnitude of social inequalities in health when estimated using SRH as opposed to mortality. The three studies, however, arrived at different conclusions about the potential misestimation of health inequalities when using SRH instead of mortality. Huisman and colleagues concluded that a weak interaction between SRH and education whilst predicting mortality is unlikely to result in over-estimation of educational differences in health status. 1 Meanwhile, Singh-Manoux and colleagues concluded that use of SRH might underestimate health inequalities by income and occupation. 3 Dowd and colleagues reported that 'self-rated health does not predict mortality as well at lower levels of SES', but do not speculate on whether this will result in over-or underestimation of social inequalities in health. 2 Testing whether the association between SRH and mortality varies by SES can at best provide indirect clues as to whether the use of SRH (instead of mortality) over-or underestimates health inequalities. Furthermore, interpretations of interactions in generalized linear models are not straightforward. It is, therefore, surprising that the authors did not directly test whether social inequalities in health are misestimated, even though this seems possible with the datasets they used for their analyses. Using the Established Populations for the Epide-miologic Study of the Elderly (EPESE) dataset 4 —the same dataset used by Idler and colleagues in their classic study showing that SRH predicts mortality 5 — we conducted a direct test of the difference in social inequalities in health when predicting SRH compared with mortality. We used education and income collected in 1982 to predict poor SRH in 1994 and mortality before 1994 in the New Haven EPESE study population. The mean (SD) age of subjects in 1982 was 74.2 (6.8). As shown in the Table 1, compared with those with a college degree or more, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting fair/poor/bad health for those with less than a high school education was 2.28 (95% CI 1.22–4.25); the corresponding OR for mortality was 2.04 (95% CI 1.41–2.94). Concordance in the ORs were observed across other educational categories as well as by income (Table 1). We also tested for the presence of an interaction …