The Experts below are selected from a list of 1377 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Chris Ryan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • self reported health reliability and consequences for health Inequality Measurement
    Health Economics, 2006
    Co-Authors: Philip Clarke, Chris Ryan
    Abstract:

    Self-reported health (SRH) is one of the most frequently employed measures for assessing income-related health inequalities between counties. A previous study has shown that 28% of respondents changed their assessment of their health status when asked a SRH question on two occasions in the same survey (first as part of self-completed questionnaire and then in a personal interview). This study re-examines this issue using another survey where SRH was again asked twice of respondents, but this time the personal interview was first and self-completion second. We find the same variation in responses, but the predominant direction is away from the 'extreme' categories 'Excellent' and 'Poor' which is the opposite direction to the previous study. We therefore conclude that the most likely explanation is a mode of administration effect that makes people less likely to choose the extreme categories in a self-completion questionnaire, but not a personal interview. However, this effect has a relatively minor impact on measures of Inequality. This is due to a large proportion of the movement (i.e. movement to the middle) not being related to income and hence does not systematically impact on the cumulative distribution of health across this measure of socio-economic status. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  • Self‐reported health: reliability and consequences for health Inequality Measurement
    Health Economics, 2006
    Co-Authors: Philip Clarke, Chris Ryan
    Abstract:

    Self-reported health (SRH) is one of the most frequently employed measures for assessing income-related health inequalities between counties. A previous study has shown that 28% of respondents changed their assessment of their health status when asked a SRH question on two occasions in the same survey (first as part of self-completed questionnaire and then in a personal interview). This study re-examines this issue using another survey where SRH was again asked twice of respondents, but this time the personal interview was first and self-completion second. We find the same variation in responses, but the predominant direction is away from the 'extreme' categories 'Excellent' and 'Poor' which is the opposite direction to the previous study. We therefore conclude that the most likely explanation is a mode of administration effect that makes people less likely to choose the extreme categories in a self-completion questionnaire, but not a personal interview. However, this effect has a relatively minor impact on measures of Inequality. This is due to a large proportion of the movement (i.e. movement to the middle) not being related to income and hence does not systematically impact on the cumulative distribution of health across this measure of socio-economic status. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Philip Clarke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Measuring Equality and Equity in Health and Health Care
    Encyclopedia of Health Economics, 2020
    Co-Authors: T. Van Ourti, Guido Erreygers, Philip Clarke
    Abstract:

    In this article, the authors give a nonexhaustive overview of the techniques that economists have developed to measure Inequality and inequity in health and health care. They start off with a concise introduction into the history of health Inequality Measurement. The remainder focuses on the most important contributions since 2000 and is intended primarily as a catalog of what is available at present.

  • self reported health reliability and consequences for health Inequality Measurement
    Health Economics, 2006
    Co-Authors: Philip Clarke, Chris Ryan
    Abstract:

    Self-reported health (SRH) is one of the most frequently employed measures for assessing income-related health inequalities between counties. A previous study has shown that 28% of respondents changed their assessment of their health status when asked a SRH question on two occasions in the same survey (first as part of self-completed questionnaire and then in a personal interview). This study re-examines this issue using another survey where SRH was again asked twice of respondents, but this time the personal interview was first and self-completion second. We find the same variation in responses, but the predominant direction is away from the 'extreme' categories 'Excellent' and 'Poor' which is the opposite direction to the previous study. We therefore conclude that the most likely explanation is a mode of administration effect that makes people less likely to choose the extreme categories in a self-completion questionnaire, but not a personal interview. However, this effect has a relatively minor impact on measures of Inequality. This is due to a large proportion of the movement (i.e. movement to the middle) not being related to income and hence does not systematically impact on the cumulative distribution of health across this measure of socio-economic status. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

  • Self‐reported health: reliability and consequences for health Inequality Measurement
    Health Economics, 2006
    Co-Authors: Philip Clarke, Chris Ryan
    Abstract:

    Self-reported health (SRH) is one of the most frequently employed measures for assessing income-related health inequalities between counties. A previous study has shown that 28% of respondents changed their assessment of their health status when asked a SRH question on two occasions in the same survey (first as part of self-completed questionnaire and then in a personal interview). This study re-examines this issue using another survey where SRH was again asked twice of respondents, but this time the personal interview was first and self-completion second. We find the same variation in responses, but the predominant direction is away from the 'extreme' categories 'Excellent' and 'Poor' which is the opposite direction to the previous study. We therefore conclude that the most likely explanation is a mode of administration effect that makes people less likely to choose the extreme categories in a self-completion questionnaire, but not a personal interview. However, this effect has a relatively minor impact on measures of Inequality. This is due to a large proportion of the movement (i.e. movement to the middle) not being related to income and hence does not systematically impact on the cumulative distribution of health across this measure of socio-economic status. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Adam Wagstaff - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • commentary value judgments in health Inequality Measurement
    Epidemiology, 2015
    Co-Authors: Adam Wagstaff
    Abstract:

    Value judgments lurk beneath the surface in any study of health inequalities; analystsought to understand them, make them explicit, and present results transparently to policymakersso that they, rather than analysts, decide which set of value judgments should beinvoked. The authors emphasize that the value judgment between attainment and shortfall gets intertwined in practice with the value judgment of whether it is absolute or relative Inequality that matters.The fact is that the two types of Inequality are not just related to one another, but are related in such a way that we can say which type of Inequality is harder to reduce: reducingabsolute Inequality is a good deal harder than reducing relative Inequality.

  • what difference does the choice of ses make in health Inequality Measurement
    Health Economics, 2003
    Co-Authors: Adam Wagstaff, Naoko Watanabe
    Abstract:

    This note explores the implications for measuring socioeconomic Inequality in health of choosing one measure of SES rather than another. Three points emerge. First, whilst similar rankings in the two the SES measures will result in similar inequalities, this is a sufficient condition not a necessary one. What matters is whether rank differences are correlated with health - if they are not, the measured degree of Inequality will be the same. Second, the statistical importance of choosing one SES measure rather than another can be assessed simply by estimating an artificial regression. Third, in the 19 countries examined here, it seems for the most part to make little difference to the measured degree of socioeconomic inequalities in malnutrition among under-five children whether one measures SES by consumption or by an asset-based wealth index. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eddy Van Doorslaer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • a welfare economics foundation for health Inequality Measurement
    Journal of Health Economics, 2006
    Co-Authors: Eddy Van Doorslaer, Han Bleichrodt
    Abstract:

    The empirical literature on the Measurement of health inequalities is vast and rapidly expanding. To date, however, no foundation in welfare economics exists for the proposed measures of health Inequality. This paper provides such a foundation for commonly used measures like the health concentration index, the Gini index, and the extended concentration index. Our results indicate that these measures require assumptions that appear restrictive. One way forward may be the development of multi-dimensional extensions.

Claudio Zoli - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.