Aversion to income, ethnic, and geographic related health inequality: Evidence from Australia.
Loading...
Date
2025-01-01
Author(s)
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Affiliation(s)
(Boujaoude, Devlin, Carvalho, Dalziel) Melbourne Health Economics, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
(Cookson)Centre for Health Economics, University of York, United Kingdom.
(Cookson)Centre for Health Economics, University of York, United Kingdom.
Year
2025
Citation
Social Science & Medicine. Vol.364 2025, pp. 1-11.
Journal
Social Science & Medicine
Conference name
Conference location
Grant information
Abstract
This study investigated the Australian general public's views on trade-offs between reducing health inequalities and improving total health. It elicited relative equity weights, comparing inequalities in life expectancy at birth across three equity-relevant dimensions: income (comparing poorest versus richest fifth), ethnic (comparing Indigenous versus non-Indigenous), and geographic (comparing rural/remote versus major cities). A benefit trade-off exercise was administered via online survey to a sample of Australian adults (n = 3105) using quota sampling to ensure population representativeness across key demographic variables (age, gender, state of residence, household income and education level). When comparing income groups, 88% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 82%-92%) of the respondents were health inequality averse, with 42% (95% CI: 34%-51%) demonstrating extreme inequality aversion. When considering Indigenous status, 85% (95% CI: 79%-90%) showed inequality aversion, and 40% (95% CI: 31%-49%) displayed extreme aversion. Lastly, looking at different geographic locations, 74% (95% CI: 66%-80%) of the respondents were inequality averse, with 37% (95% CI: 29%-46%) showing extreme inequality aversion. The relative equity weights were calculated, allowing for varying baseline inequalities in life expectancy - proportional gaps of 10.8%, 5.1% and 6.3%, respectively. The results imply that the public is willing to weight incremental health gains to the poorest fifth five times more than to the richest fifth, six times more for Indigenous versus non-Indigenous, and four times more for people living in rural and remote areas compared to major cities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
PubMed ID
39581060
Type
Article
Study type
Observational study (cohort, case-control, cross sectional, or survey)
Subjects
Public health