Place, disadvantage and outcomes Dr Angela Donkin Life expectancy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

place disadvantage and
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Place, disadvantage and outcomes Dr Angela Donkin Life expectancy - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Place, disadvantage and outcomes Dr Angela Donkin Life expectancy and disability free life expectancy, males - based on 2011 Census Life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) at birth, males by neighborhood deprivation, England,


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Place, disadvantage and

  • utcomes

Dr Angela Donkin

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Life expectancy and disability free life expectancy, males - based on 2011 Census

Life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) at birth, males by neighborhood deprivation, England, 1999– 2003 and 2009-2013

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Life expectancy and disability free life expectancy, females - based on 2011 Census

Life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy (DFLE) at birth, females by neighbourhood deprivation, England, 1999– 2003 and 2009-2013

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Males Most deprived Median Least deprived Gap 1999-2003 19.0 14.0 10.8 8.2 2009-2013 20.0 15.0 11.8 8.2 Females 1999-2003 22.0 16.5 13.2 8.8 2009-2013 23.5 18.2 15.2 8.3

Average number of years with a disability

by sex for most, least and median deprivation small areas (MSOAs), 1999-2003 and 2009-2013 Life expectancy is increasing but healthy life expectancy not keeping up – spending more years in ill health, and those in deprived areas many more years.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Well being

  • 4.8% of adults aged over 16 had low levels of life satisfaction in 2014-15, compared to

5.6% the previous year

  • Low levels of life satisfaction worse in more deprived areas.
  • Ranged from 2.8% in Bath and North East Somerset, to 8.7% in Wolverhampton.
slide-6
SLIDE 6

Policy Objectives: The Social Determinants of Health

A. Give every child the best start in life B. Enable all children, young people and adults to maximise their capabilities and have control over their lives.

  • C. Create fair employment and good work for all
  • D. Ensure a healthy standard of living for all

E. Create and develop healthy and sustainable places and communities F. Strengthen the role and impact of ill-health prevention

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Look at the Inequalities Indicators Table…..

  • It depicts the Marmot indicator scores for the most

deprived, average, and least deprived areas.

  • For every indicator there is a clear pattern…

scores are generally better in the least deprived areas and worse in the most deprived areas.

  • Clustering of disadvantage.
  • In Blackpool men live until 54.9 in good health,

compared to 71.4 in Wokingham.

  • Not all bad – children eligible for FSM do better in

early years in more deprived areas.

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Some current SDH issues…

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Increase in numbers not able to afford a healthy life.

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Greener living environments: lower health inequalities, England

Source: Mitchell & Popham, Lancet 2008 Deaths from circulatory disease

Income group 4 is most deprived

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Lower usage of green space in more deprived areas

  • In England, 15.3% had visited the natural environment from March 2012 to

February 2013.

  • Green space important for more deprived communities-impact on CVD,

and mental health.

Monitor of Engagement with the Natural Environment, Natural Health England, September 2013 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00

%

Proportion of residents who visited the natural environment in the last 7 days for exercise or health reasons

% use

Least Deprived Most Deprived

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Fast food chains more common in deprived areas: England and Scotland

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

5 (most deprived 4 3 2 1 (least deprived)

Mean number of fast food outlets* per 100000 people

Index of multiple deprivation quintile Macdonald et al 2007 (*McDonald’s, Burger King, KFC and Pizza Hut)

slide-13
SLIDE 13

SDH issues for those in multiply disadvantaged groups…

slide-14
SLIDE 14

A study of homeless people in Edinburgh found that19

  • 20% have never been employed
  • 50% had no friends or confidants
  • 40% had been sexually abused
  • 60% had been physically abused
  • 40% had spent time in prison
  • 70% had at least one diagnosable Personality Disorder

A report by Crisis20 states that only 38% of rough sleepers have any form of qualification, compared to 66% of the general population. …Need to focus on reducing abuse in childhood, improving education for all and ensuring work/life pathways for those with no qualifications.

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Reasons for entering sex work

51.5 16.5 12.6 9.7 2.9 6.8 48.3 10 31 6.9 4.1 10 20 30 40 50 60 Household expenses/ support family Social life Studies/saving Drugs Made to work by someone/give to

  • ther

Debts/survival/other

Domestic Migrant

For every extra year of education the likelihood

  • f

entrance into prostitution reduced by 12%. Another study found that from a sample of 200 sex workers, 60% had been sexually abused or victimized by incest.13 Homelessness is also considered a significant factor, given that this is

  • ften tied up with drug

use and mental illness. Secure accommodation is necessary to provide the stability to address these problems.14

Source Platt and others7

%

slide-16
SLIDE 16

If lack of income and early years abuse drive homelessness and sex work, you would expect to see higher prevalance in deprived neighbourhoods/ areas with high costs of living and those with poorer early years and safeguarding records… Could focus strategies for reduction of these conditions in these neighbourhoods,

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Level of development at end of reception

  • In 2013/14 - 60.4% of all children and 44.8% of pupils eligible for free school meals achieved a

‘good level of development’, compared to 51.7% and 36.2% respectively in 2012/13.

  • There was a significant improvement across all English regions.
  • The gap between all and FSM pupils was greater in more advantaged areas and tended to

narrow with increasing area deprivation.

  • Gap ranged from 4.2 in Hackney to 29.5 in Bath and North East Somerset.
  • But nearly half of all upper tier local authority areas reduced in-area inequalities between

2012/13 and 2013/14.

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Percentage reaching a good level of development at age 5 Area level of deprivation, IMD 15

The percentage of children achieving a good level of development at the end of reception 2013/14, IMD 2015

All pupils FSM pupils

Least deprived Most deprived

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Some differences in English regions…

E.g. the South East has significantly improved against 6 indicators. But

  • NEET
  • Households in fuel poverty
  • Households unable to afford an

acceptable standard of living significantly worsened. No significantly worse indicators for the North West, but 9 indicators significantly better.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Regional figures available for each local authority online

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Discussion

  • How can the use of the social determinants of health model be applied to

Issues of multiple deprivation.. E.g. homelessness, sex work, substance abuse?

  • What is the interplay between the conditions in which people are born,

educated, work (or not) and individual behaviour?

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Thank you Contact details a.donkin@ucl.ac.uk