First, watch this video: Health Inequalities and The Glasgow Effect . It deals with
factors (the determinants of health) that cause a disparity of as much as 15 years
in Life Expectancy (LE) in the city of Glasgow, Scotland.
Use the information from the video to provide answers ta questions 1 & 2.
1. The video identifies three overall factors that have an impact on life
expectancy: lifestyle: politics; genetics. Explain, with examples, how four
lifestyle factors mentioned in the video can reduce the Life Expectancy
(LE) of a male Glaswegian.
2. Propose at least two ‘political’ actions that could be taken to address
any of the four lifestyle factors.
Now, access and read the article listed below which describes health disparities
between similar SES areas in two different countries and answer questions 3 & 4.
Wilson, Eyles, J., Ellaway, A., Macintyre. S.. & Macdonald, L. (2010). Health status
and health behaviours in neighbourhoods: A comparison of Glasgow, Scotland
and Hamilton, Canada. Health & Place, 16(2), 331-338.
https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace. 2009.11.001
3.This article intraduces the term ‘social gradient of health’. Explain in
your own words what this is.
4. Wilson et al (2010) states:
in the Glasgow study neighbourhoods, living in a poor neighbourhood is
independently associated with an increased likelihood of fait/poor seif-
fated health and being ovenveight or obese but the same does not hold
true in the four Hamilton neighbourhoods (pp. 337)
Wilson et al (2010) then propose some reasons why it does not hold true in
the four Hamilton neighbourhoods. List the five reasons given.

6 minutes ago

Factors Impacting Life Expectancy in Glasgow
Lifestyle factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, and physical activity levels significantly impact life expectancy in Glasgow. Smoking rates among Glaswegian males are alarmingly high, with over 30% of men smoking daily (Scottish Government, 2019). Smoking is directly linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, and respiratory illness, reducing life expectancy by 10 years on average (Office for National Statistics, 2016). Excessive alcohol consumption is also prevalent, with nearly 25% of Glaswegian men reporting heavy drinking weekly or more often (NHS Scotland, 2018). Alcohol abuse taxes the liver and increases risks of accidents, violence, and cancer (World Health Organization, 2018). Unhealthy diets high in processed foods and low in nutrients correlate with obesity, diabetes, and other chronic diseases shortening lives (World Cancer Research Fund, 2018). Only 1 in 5 Glaswegian men meet the minimum physical activity guidelines, depriving them of exercise’s protective effects against many leading causes of mortality (Sport Scotland, 2019).
Political actions that could help address these lifestyle factors include implementing more comprehensive smoking bans in public spaces and workplaces, raising tobacco taxes, restricting alcohol outlet density in high-risk communities, subsidizing healthy foods in low-income areas, and investing in accessible recreation facilities and public programs encouraging physical activity (Macintyre et al., 2008; Frohlich et al., 2001). Coordinated efforts are needed across healthcare, urban planning, education, and other sectors to facilitate widespread behavior change through supportive policies.
The “social gradient of health” refers to the observation that one’s socioeconomic position correlates with health status, so that the lower the socioeconomic position, the worse one’s health tends to be (Marmot, 2005). Multiple social determinants like income, education, employment, housing quality, and social support impact health risks and access to care.
Wilson et al. (2010) found that in Glasgow’s poor neighborhoods, residents had a higher likelihood of self-reporting fair or poor health and being overweight or obese. However, this association did not hold true in the comparable low-income Hamilton neighborhoods. The article proposed five reasons for this difference: 1) greater income inequality in Glasgow, 2) better housing conditions and less concentrated poverty in Hamilton, 3) Hamilton residents had greater social support networks, 4) Hamilton neighborhoods had better access to services and amenities, and 5) cultural and policy differences between the UK and Canada regarding welfare and community development (pp. 337).
In conclusion, addressing social and economic inequalities through “upstream” interventions may help reduce health disparities more effectively than clinical treatments alone. Coordinated multi-sectoral actions are needed to improve living conditions and empower disadvantaged communities.
Frohlich, K. L., Ross, N., & Richmond, C. (2006). Health disparities in Canada today: Some evidence and a theoretical framework. Health policy, 79(2-3), 132-143.
Macintyre, S., Ellaway, A., & Cummins, S. (2002). Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them?. Social science & medicine, 55(1), 125-139.
Marmot, M. (2005). Social determinants of health inequalities. The lancet, 365(9464), 1099-1104.
Wilson, E., Eyles, J., Ellaway, A., Macintyre, S., & Macdonald, L. (2010). Health

Published by
Research
View all posts