Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Theoretical explanations for socioeconomic inequalities in multimorbidity: a scoping review.
Fleitas Alfonzo, Ludmila; King, Tania; You, Emily; Contreras-Suarez, Diana; Zulkelfi, Syafiqah; Singh, Ankur.
  • Fleitas Alfonzo L; Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ludmila.fleitasalfonzo@unimelb.edu.au.
  • King T; Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • You E; Academic Unit for Psychiatry of Old Age, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne Faculty of Medicine Dentistry and Health Sciences, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Contreras-Suarez D; Melbourne Institute: Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Zulkelfi S; Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
  • Singh A; Centre of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
BMJ Open ; 12(2): e055264, 2022 02 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1704088
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To document socioepidemiological theories used to explain the relationship between socioeconomic disadvantage and multimorbidity.

DESIGN:

Scoping review.

METHODS:

A search strategy was developed and then applied to multiple electronic databases including Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Scielo, Applied Social Sciences, ERIC, Humanities Index and Sociological Abstracts. After the selection of studies, data were extracted using a data charting plan. The last search was performed on the 28 September 2021. Extracted data included study design, country, population subgroups, measures of socioeconomic inequality, assessment of multimorbidity and conclusion on the association between socioeconomic variables and multimorbidity. Included studies were further assessed on their use of theory, type of theories used and context of application. Finally, we conducted a meta-narrative synthesis to summarise the results.

RESULTS:

A total of 64 studies were included in the review. Of these, 33 papers included theories as explanations for the association between socioeconomic position and multimorbidity. Within this group, 16 explicitly stated those theories and five tested at least one theory. Behavioural theories (health behaviours) were the most frequently used, followed by materialist (access to health resources) and psychosocial (stress pathways) theories. Most studies used theories as post hoc explanations for their findings or for study rationale. Supportive evidence was found for the role of material, behavioural and life course theories in explaining the relationship between social inequalities and multimorbidity.

CONCLUSION:

Given the widely reported social inequalities in multimorbidity and its increasing public health burden, there is a critical gap in evidence on pathways from socioeconomic disadvantage to multimorbidity. Generating evidence of these pathways will guide the development of intervention and public policies to prevent multimorbidity among people living in social disadvantage. Material, behavioural and life course pathways can be targeted to reduce the negative effect of low socioeconomic position on multimorbidity.
Subject(s)
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Research Design / Multimorbidity Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: BMJ Open Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bmjopen-2021-055264

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Research Design / Multimorbidity Type of study: Experimental Studies / Prognostic study / Randomized controlled trials / Reviews Limits: Humans Language: English Journal: BMJ Open Year: 2022 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: Bmjopen-2021-055264