Essay: Social Gradients In Health Of Indigenous Australians.

Discuss About The Social Gradients In The Health Of Indigenous Australians.

Health Inequalities and Diabetes

Health inequalities are the differences in accessing various health services ranging from curative, preventive or promotional services. The healthcare inequalities of diabetes are dynamic and reflect multiple determinants. The disparity in the health sector are judged to be unfair and unjust and should be avoided.  Health inequalities are always seen through the various pattern in access of health across the populations with different underlying social advantage and disadvantages such as prestige, power and wealth or other stratification in the society.  Studies across the low, middle and high-income countries are showing that health inequalities are not only related to genetic or biological factors but social factors contribute immensely to the population (Carlisle 2000, p.67).

 The continued prevalence of diabetes has risen to be an epidemic in India as a result of the increased surge in the recent decades. In the year 2000, India recorded the highest number of individuals with diabetes having 31.7 million of diabetic patients seconded by China with 20.8 million and the United States with 17.7 million being the third. Baum (2008, p.45) notes that the diabetes prevalence will be two times from 170 million in 366 million in 2030 worldwide with the highest number experienced in India. Currently, the country of India faces uncertain future as a result of the burden that diabetes may impose on the nation. Numerous factors are affecting the prevalence of diabetes across the nation of India and knowing these factors is essential in conduct some changes when dealing with such challenges of health.

The increased diabetes prevalence in India occurs because of genetic factors coupled with the environmental factors. The environmental influences of diabetes include obesity, steady urban migration, changes in lifestyle and the increased standard of living. Various diabetes incidence patterns in India are associated with the geographical distribution. It is approximated that diabetes prevalence in the populations in rural areas of India is only a quarter that of the population in urban areas. The study conducted by Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) indicate that the Northern population of India is less affected as compared to Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu. The evidence on the contributing factors to health inequality of diabetes and specific disparities of diabetes will guide effort in future to decrease the unequal distributions of health care (De Vogl T et al. 2011, p.23). The disparity of socio-economic are seen in diabetes with high death and incidence among the socio-economic groups. Social disparities have been noted in India despite the worldwide coverage of the health care systems (Nettleton 2013, p.40). The access of health care should not be a question of equal potential access but should reflect the actual use of patients of the services that are available.

Prevalence of Diabetes in India

There have been various studies that have been engaged to comprehend the determinants that are crucial to health outcomes in India. The burden of health is distributed unequally in different population subgroups and is majorly experienced in individuals with lower socio economics status who consistently incur health outcomes that are poor. The assessment of the health inequalities concerning social groupings assumes the existence of meaningful social clusters that reflect the unequal allocation of resources and the opportunities in life between the various social gatherings. According to Baum (2008, p.17) the private places, gender, occupation, education, and religion are among the stratifies that can be utilized in determining the social groups. The income-related inequalities are among the contributory factors that have propounded poor health outcomes in India (Braveman and Gruskin 2003, p.39).

Various categories were used in the past for explaining diabetes inequalities. One of the explanation was based on material factors. The material factors involve shelter, food and other risks and resources that could influence the outcomes of health. The other explanation was based on psychosocial factors that lead to health inequalities and social group differences in health. The psychosocial health impacts originate from feelings of discrimination, stress and low support to social experiences. The negative psychological states had effects on the physical health through the activation of the biological stress response which may result in high blood pressure and other outcomes.

More so, the behavioral differences were also considered as a contributor to the inequalities of health. For instance, the behavior change might attribute to disparities in health through the different habits of eating, the prevalence in smoking or the increased rates of cancer screening in the social groups in the population (McNamara et al.205, p.86). Previously, some literature that has documented the systematic and pervasive inequalities in India. Health inequalities are disproportionate of the burden of the disease or risk factors of behavior experienced by the subgroups in the population. In India, most researchers have focused their studies of inequalities in health by the use of the status of socio-economic. The social conditions in which various individuals live have been the primary influence of acquiring better health. The factors such as food insecurity, poverty, inadequate housing and social discrimination and exclusion and the low occupational status crucial determinants of diabetes, deaths, and inequalities in India (Marmot et al. 2008, p. 87).

Public health has explained the health inequity through the social determinants of health. This directly implies that the social determinants contribute to the health inequalities between the social groups because the social determinants of wellbeing are not disseminated reasonably over the general public. In India, there are some ways that can be used in measuring the health inequalities. Firstly, adequate baseline information is required to assist in understanding the health inequalities (Mackenbach 2015, p.33). The information needed is the data on death, illness and the use of health service, information on the pattern of health indicators across different demographic or socioeconomic groups. Furthermore, a perspective of the life course is also utilized as it provides a framework for understanding how the social determinants influence health and thereby generating health inequalities and eventually devising entry points for interventions.

Factors Contributing to Diabetes in India

The main reason for the few studies on the health inequalities was that the health policy at the time focused on covering the services of health and therefore study focused on the essential services delivery of health. During the 1980s, the socio-economic determinants of health were considered as barriers that may hold India back from modernization (Prakash 2012, p. 17). There have been many global and national interventions that have brought the inequalities of health on the radar of some policy. The Alma Ata that fronted “Health for all” emphasized the importance of the healthcare in decreasing health disparities in India (Ata, A., 1978, p.345).

In other countries, individual movements were initiated which highlighted the health deprivations faced by poor people in the world. For instance, in Brazil, the health movements as a fundamental right in decreasing health disparity prompted for the constitutional amendment in 1988 after 20 years of political dictatorship. While in India, the focus of research on diabetes was minimal and mainly focused on the issues of family planning, child health, and reproductive health.  The social determinants of well-being disparities in the 1980s were gender and poverty. The WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health (CSDH) pushed for the lessening of the health disparities.

The political and social movements have been of significance in highlighting the health inequalities of diabetes in India. Education and poverty have been the primary focus of the Indian public policy. The development in health education especially in establishing of preventive departments and health electives in other courses like social works built capacity for research on the India health inequalities. There have been some Indian wellbeing projects and strategies that have endeavored to get rid of the hardship in the human services supplier to accomplish the substantial value (Shepherd and Zubrick 2012, p.43). Unfortunate results of sort 2 Diabetes mellitus confusions show lacking consideration and observing of diabetes in India. Over half of individuals with diabetes in India have inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c > 8%), uncontrolled hypertension and dyslipidemia, and a large number of them have diabetic vascular entanglements.

In a review directed by Delhi Diabetes Community (DEDICOM) that included 819 grown-ups from the center and upper financial foundations, just 13% had checked their HbA1c in the year earlier, just 16.2% had expanded eye examinations and 32% had cholesterol examinations. Self-checking of blood glucose had a low recurrence of 3.1/month with 42% having a HbA1c of over 8%. The clinical profile and glycemic result in known diabetic cases in South Indian urban and peri-urban populaces was broke down by Ramachandran et al. in 2008 and the investigation uncovered that even in urban communities where specific look after diabetes was accessible, the clinical result of known diabetic cases was not almost palatable (45.3 years was the mean age at analysis, hypertension pervasiveness was 57.4% (32% known); 48% were hefty, and 63.3% had stomach stoutness, and half had dyslipidemia.

Determinants of Health Inequalities in India

Currently, there have been some models that are used to depict the diabetes health inequality in India. The public health models currently have a focus on the social determinants of healthcare which are the primary cause of the health inequalities. It is done by measuring the health gap between the different social groups. Harper and Lynch (2006, p.56) postulate that this provides necessary information that is utilized in programs, policies, and practices that address the social determinants to bridge the health gaps. A common approach that is being used in the measurement is the ranking of the population concerning the socio-economic position. The population is then divided into groups based on the ranking and each group is compared to the health indicators of interest.

According to WHO (2013, p.345), the ranking of the population using the socio-economic factors involve education, income level as well as occupation.  Some factors such as housing, access to resources and the family structure may also be used. In this approach, the gap between the lowest and the highest socio-economic groups is of interest. Harper et al. (2010, p. 99) posit that the simple range of the measures of epidemiology such as the prevalence and can be utilized in the examination of the gap. The gap can be relative or absolute depending on the differences in the rate.

The relative and absolute measures are essential in determining the differences in the status of health between the two groups. The absolute measures are vital in the making of decision especially when goals have been set since they permit an appraisal of the size of a problem of public health. Diabetes is not distributed equally within the population in India. The variation in the diabetes prevalence follows a gradient with the overall improvements in healthy occurring due to the developments in the socio-economic factors (Kawachi et al. 2002, p.47). The absolute versus relative social position is significant in considering poverty which is defined by comparing a given income to the total income distribution in a population. The various level modeling techniques that permit people to disentangle individual influence characteristics from those of high levels have been vital in the progress of the research into inequality and most specifically the factors of diabetes health risk. The socio-economic status relative measure interests show that inequality harms the health of individuals (Kaveeshwar and Cornwall 2014, p.88).

The government and other partner organizations are progressively implementing policies and strategies that help to tackle diabetes variations in India. In India, the health inequalities is a national priority and based on evidence information as reflected in the principal targets. A few projects expected to give mindfulness about T2DM and its inconveniences, screening, and evaluation of the pervasiveness of diabetes in Indian masses, have been propelled by the administration of India (GoI) and state governments (Khalil, Tan and George 2012, p.74). In 1987, the National diabetes control program was started on a pilot premise the regions of Tamil Nadu, Jammu, and Kashmir, and Karnataka by the local government with the objectives of recognizing high-chance subjects at an early age, provoke administration of inconveniences related with diabetes and teaching the overall public about wellbeing. An absence of assets brought about the suspension of this program (Rao 2011, p. 89).

Measuring Health Inequalities in India

The central government also propelled another program called the Integrated Disease Surveillance Program (IDSP) in November 2004 planning to take a general study for NCD hazard factors, for example, tobacco utilization, anthropometry, physical movement, circulatory strain, sustenance, and so on. The overview is consistently being done, and the World Bank discharged assets for Central reconnaissance unit at NCDC and nine states from April 2010 to March 2012 (Tuomilehto et al. 2001, p.114). The National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) was propelled in April 2005 with the goal to manage shortcomings in essential social insurance and to enhance provincial wellbeing foundation. Andhra Pradesh revealed 75% patient fulfillment in 2009, yet it was brought down in different states (Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Bihar). In January 2008, the National Program for Prevention and Control of Diabetes (NPDCS) was propelled in 7 states (Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Assam, Punjab, Karnataka, Rajasthan, and Andhra Pradesh) with the target of diagnosing and overseeing NCDs early, preparing human services experts, and setting up palliative and rehabilitative care.

Up until now, NPDCS has been actualized in 100 locales crosswise over 21 states and by 2017, it is figured to achieve 640 areas. Better coordination and communication are required to enable the sharing of the best practices of each program and emulation of those practices by others.  All these programs need to be monitored by a single body on a national level, and incentives should be distributed to award programs that reach their stated objectives.  Lack of awareness, insufficient screening and diagnosis, inadequate treatment modalities, and low spending all factor into the shortcomings of diabetes care programs.

Conclusion

The links between the health inequalities and diabetes have been documented and mostly reflect on the aspects of deprivation as well as other areas in the public health. Over time India has the lead to the prevalence of diabetes, and it is still increasing. Addressing some of the inequalities in health will help in the treatment and prevention of diabetes which will help the future population of India. The utilization of the right information and understanding the culture of the local population will be useful to improve the self-management of diabetes in patients. It is noted that many people are in the disadvantaged groups which further compounds their problems making them likely to reverse the spiral downwards. For successful intervention, the complex diversity needs to be reflected in the interventions that address the inequalities in diabetes outcome.

History of Health Inequalities in India

The community groups and professionals should be incorporated from the outset to improve access to services. The agencies that interact on a regular basis with the individual with diabetes from the disadvantaged groups should increase diabetes awareness as well as target screening to those at risk of developing diabetes. The individuals in the socio-economic underprivileged groups do not access the healthcare they require, and more work is needed to address this.

References

Ata, A., 1978, September. Declaration of Alma Ata: International conference on primary health care. In Alma Ata, USSR: International Conference on Primary Health Care (Vol. 6).

Baum, F., 2008. Understanding health–definitions and perspectives. The New Public Health (3rd ed.), Oxford University Press: South Melbourne, pp.3-16.

Baum, F., 2008. The Commission on the Social Determinants of Health: reinventing health promotion for the twenty-first century?. Critical Public Health, 18(4), pp.457-466.

Braveman, P. and Gruskin, S., 2003. Defining equity in health. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 57(4), pp.254-258.

Carlisle, S., 2000. Health promotion, advocacy and health inequalities: a conceptual framework. Health Promotion International, 15(4), pp.369-376.

De Vogli, R., Gimeno, D., Martini, G. and Conforti, D., 2007. The pervasiveness of the socioeconomic gradient of health. European journal of epidemiology, 22(2), pp.143-144.

Harper, S., King, N.B., Meersman, S.C., Reichman, M.E., Breen, N. and Lynch, J., 2010. Implicit value judgments in the measurement of health inequalities. The Milbank Quarterly, 88(1), pp.4-29

Harper, S. and Lynch, J., 2006. Measuring health inequalities. Methods in social epidemiology, 1, p.134.

Kaveeshwar, S.A. and Cornwall, J., 2014. The current state of diabetes mellitus in India. The Australasian medical journal, 7(1), p.45.

Kawachi, I., Subramanian, S.V. and Almeida-Filho, N., 2002. A glossary for health inequalities. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 56(9), pp.647-652.

Khalil, H., Tan, L. and George, J., 2012. Diabetes management in Australian rural aged care facilities: A cross-sectional audit. The Australasian medical journal, 5(11), p.575.

Mackenbach, J.P., 2015. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in high-income countries: the facts and the options. Oxford Textbook of Global Public Health: The practice of public health. Vol. 3, p.106.

McNamara, K., Knight, A., Livingston, M., Kypri, K., Malo, J., Roberts, L., Stanley, S., Grimes, C., Bolam, B., Gooey, M. and Daube, M., 2015. Targets and indicators for chronic disease prevention in Australia. Australian Health Policy Collaboration Papers, p.x.

Marmot, M., Friel, S., Bell, R., Houweling, T.A., Taylor, S. and Commission on Social Determinants of Health, 2008. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. The lancet, 372(9650), pp.1661-1669.

Nettleton, S., 2013. Social inequalities and health status: The sociology of health and illness, Third ed., Polity, Cambridge, pp. 150-181.

Prakash, G., 1999. Another reason: Science and the imagination of modern India. Princeton University Press.

Ramachandran, A., Snehalatha, C., Mary, S., Mukesh, B., Bhaskar, A.D. and Vijay, V., 2008. The Indian Diabetes Prevention Programme shows that lifestyle modification and metformin prevent type 2 diabetes in Asian Indian subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IDPP-1). Diabetologia, 49(2), pp.289-297.

Rao, C.R., Kamath, V.G., Shetty, A. and Kamath, A., 2011. A cross-sectional analysis of obesity among a rural population in coastal Southern Karnataka, India. The Australasian medical journal, 4(1), p.53.

Shepherd, C.C., Li, J. and Zubrick, S.R., 2012. Social gradients in the health of Indigenous Australians. American journal of public healthcare, 102(1), pp.107-117.

Tuomilehto, J., Lindström, J., Eriksson, J.G., Valle, T.T., Hämäläinen, H., Ilanne-Parikka, P., Keinänen-Kiukaanniemi, S., Laakso, M., Louheranta, A., Rastas, M. and Salminen, V., 2001. Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance. New England Journal of Medicine, 344(18), pp.1343-1350.