Health Equity Addressing Disparities in Public Health Essay Answer

Introduction

In the context of public health, "health equity" refers to the absence of preventable, correctable, and inequitable disparities in the health of a population. The economics, geography, and society, in addition to any other pertinent aspects of inequality, are used to categorise people into these groups. After experiencing discrimination, prejudice, or stereotyping on the basis of age, ethnicity, sex, disability, or gender, a person's quality of life is likely to deteriorate (WHO, 2023). The concepts of health equity and inequality refer to the disparities, within a population, that exist between different groups in terms of access to medical care and overall health status. Although the United Kingdom (UK) has a publicly funded National Health Service (NHS) with the intention of providing universal access to medical treatment, the reality is much more difficult. According to the Government of the United Kingdom (2022), health inequalities frequently and disproportionately affect groups that are both economically and socially disadvantaged. This reveals a complex web of cultural and political issues. The context of society plays a role in the development of health disparities. Conditions of living, opportunities for careers, educational attainment, and socioeconomic standing are all factors that have a substantial bearing on the well-being of individuals as well as on society as a whole. An examination of these aspects in greater detail reveals the systemic imbalances that influence health outcomes (WHO, 2018). People with lower incomes frequently confront obstacles that prevent them from gaining access to proper medical care, nutritious food, secure housing, and education, all of which collectively raise their susceptibility to health issues. According to McCaughan et al.'s research from 2020, there is a clear connection between societal stratification and health disparities, which represents the way in which political decisions influence the distribution of opportunities and resources across the country.

The intricate web of relationships that exists between health outcomes, politics, and societal institutions provide a critical focal point for in-depth investigation within the intricately woven fabric of modern civilizations. The relationship between society and politics and health disparities and injustice has gotten a significant amount of attention, and nowhere is this more apparent than in the United Kingdom (McCartney et al., 2019). As a result of the challenges presented by a rapidly shifting social landscape and a dynamic political arena, the disparities in the health outcomes experienced by different segments of the population in the United Kingdom have emerged as a crucial lens through which to investigate the interrelation of these components. The political atmosphere in the UK is another factor that plays an essential role in determining health disparities. Because policies and governance systems have the ability to either increase health disparities or minimise them, they serve as an illustration of the power relations that exist between the government and its people (Paavola, 2017). The allocation of funds for healthcare, the evolution of welfare policy, and the imposition of austerity measures are all factors that have a discernible impact on health outcomes. According to Harris et al. (2017), political decisions may give certain groups' points of view more weight than those of other populations, which can result in unequal access to health-related information and services.

The root causes of health inequity are complicated, interdependent, diverse and evolving in nature. The structural inequities include interpersonal, personal and institutional drivers. The economic and cultural determinants of health are the area based on which structural inequity produces discrimination (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). Systematic variations results in the factors that result in health inequalities across the population or group of people. High-risk health behaviour prevalence is high in lower socio-economic groups. This worsens the opportunities along with accessibility to care for healthy lives. People’s behaviour is one of the most critical factors that contribute to health inequality. Physical inactivity, poor diet, alcohol consumption and smoking come under the behavioural risk factors for health inequity (Williams et al., 2022). The inequalities in health have impacted people all over the UK for many years. Health inequalities can be distinct in several ways. The imbalance in accessibility to employment, education and income level adds to the health inequalities. Lower-income and poor health of the people are considered to be two assets that contribute to the negative results, thus restraining the opportunities for stable and suitable employment. In the study conducted by the National Statistics and Health Foundation, it has been observed that none of the areas in England has outperformed the average net annual income (University of Sunderland, 2021).

The understanding that health disparity is not a single issue but rather an intersectional one highlights the complex dance between society and politics in the UK. As a result of the compounding health disparities that frequently affect marginalised groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, and disability status, societal prejudices and political choices play a significant role in these disparities. While there has been progress in recognising and resolving these disparities, tearing down the ingrained institutions that support them remains a difficult task (The Health Foundation, 2022). The essay will discuss the complex elements that contribute to these discrepancies as we examine the impact of society and politics on health disparity and inequity in the UK. This analysis aims to offer insight into the complex mechanisms that define the health landscape of the country, from examining the influence of socioeconomic stratification on health outcomes to examining the role of policy decisions in amplifying or reducing these disparities. In addition to this, a greater understanding of how cultural and political forces might be mobilised to untangle the problem of health inequality and pave the path for a more equitable future by separating the threads that bind these complex concerns together.

Inequalities in Health Outcome

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a depressing example of how different populations can experience the same health outcomes. This highlights the persistent discrepancies that are characteristic of the healthcare system in the UK. In spite of significant advances in medical care, there are still significant gaps between demographic groups with regard to the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), the prevalence of CHD, and the treatment of CHD (NIH, 2022). This part examines the data that demonstrates these differences in health and looks at the interaction of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and location to predict various CHD outcomes. Specifically, this section focuses on the African American population. The socioeconomic position of an individual is one of the primary factors that contribute to health disparities in relation to coronary heart disease (CHD). There is a discernible gradient in the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and the outcomes associated with it, and this gradient is based on one's income, degree of education, and line of employment.

The data collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed a disturbing pattern: those who reside in the poorest areas of the UK have a significantly increased risk of passing away from coronary heart disease at an earlier age compared to those who live in more prosperous places. This disparity highlights how social and economic conditions have a substantial impact on the cardiovascular health of a population (Khan et al., 2022). People who live in regions that are not well developed have an increased risk of coronary heart disease and are more likely to pass away at an earlier stage in their lives (The Strategy Unit, 2022). In the United Kingdom, the prevalence of coronary heart disease is significantly influenced by ethnicity. It is not uncommon for there to be racial disparities in both the prevalence of CHD and the treatment of it. For instance, persons who are members of BAME groups—which stands for Black, Asian, Minority, and Ethnic—often have a higher risk of developing coronary heart disease (CHD) and the risk factors that go along with it. (Goff, 2019). 

South Asian ancestry are more likely to develop diabetes and hypertension, both of which are risk factors for CHD. Additionally, they frequently develop CHD earlier in life, which results in a heavier lifetime disease burden (Shah et al., 2022). Geographical location also plays a role in the UK's health disparities in CHD outcomes. According to data from Public Health England, certain areas of England, particularly the north, have higher hospital admissions and mortality rates due to CHD. These variations show how social variables, healthcare access, and regional policies interact in complex ways. Due to obstacles in early detection and intervention, residents of locations with scarce healthcare resources or little access to preventive programmes may have higher CHD risks (Disler et al., 2020). When it comes to sustaining or reducing CHD-related inequities, access to healthcare services is crucial. People from underprivileged origins face obstacles while trying to get timely and efficient care (Thompson et al., 2019).The best management of CHD may be hampered by lengthy waiting times, difficulty obtaining specialised services, and budgetary limitations. Additionally, the closure of medical facilities in some impoverished regions makes these inequities worse and results in an uneven allocation of care resources (Riegel et al., 2022). Significant behavioural and lifestyle choices are involved in CHD inequalities.

People who come from backgrounds of lower socioeconomic status have a greater propensity to engage in risky behaviours, such as smoking, eating poorly, and not exercising, all of which are important risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD). Wider socioeconomic issues, such as a scarcity of access to healthy food options and safe recreational spaces, are frequently a factor in these kinds of habits. Because of this, programmes to ameliorate CHD disparities need to include treatments that support healthy lifestyles in impoverished populations (Tchicaya et al., 2018). In the United Kingdom, it is incontestable that there are ongoing health disparities in coronary heart disease as a result of a complex interaction of socioeconomic, racial, geographical, and healthcare access determinants. This is the case even while access to healthcare is improving. In order to address these disparities, it will be important to implement a multifaceted strategy that addresses legislative reforms, equitable access to healthcare, outreach that takes into account cultural factors, and targeted educational initiatives (European Commission, 2021). It is possible for the United Kingdom to strive towards a more equitable distribution of cardiovascular health and, ultimately, pave the way for a healthier future for all of its citizens by acknowledging and addressing the structural determinants that drive these discrepancies. This would allow the United Kingdom to work towards a more equitable distribution of cardiovascular health.

Difference in the Outcome is Unfair

At first glance, it can appear that the health inequalities that are caused by differences in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and location are unfair because these factors systematically discriminate against certain groups of people. A more in-depth investigation is required in order to appreciate the intricate web of causes, historical context, and structural aspects that contribute to these injustices (O'Neil et al., 2020). The crux of the issue is coming to terms with the underlying injustices that have enabled these health disparities to endure for a considerable amount of time and through many generations. There is a strong correlation between socioeconomic standing and access to various resources, such as healthcare, employment opportunities, and educational opportunities. When those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have limited access to nutritional food, safe housing, high-quality education, and preventive healthcare services, these individuals are at a much higher risk of contracting diseases such as coronary heart disease (CHD). According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017), it is feasible to consider the inequalities in health outcomes as the result of unfair social and economic structures that disproportionately benefit some parts of the population. In this context, it is conceivable to regard the disparities in health outcomes as the product of unjust social and economic structures. When determining whether or not there has been an unfair distribution of health outcomes, it is necessary to take into account the relevant history. Over the course of many decades, many underrepresented groups, particularly those with ties to racial or ethnic minorities, have been exposed to systemic exclusion, discrimination, and unequal access to opportunities. This is especially true for those with ties to groups that have historically been excluded.

The legacy of disadvantages left by this history can persist for decades, and as a result, there are disparities in the results related to health. It is far more challenging for these groups to acquire the same level of health and well-being as their counterparts who have been historically more fortunate because these groups usually begin from places of historical deprivation. According to D'Anna and her colleagues (2018), this is the root of the unfairness. The concept of social determinants of health highlights how unfair these discrepancies are even more than they already were. In addition to the decisions that people make for themselves, the environments in which they live, work, and play can have an effect on their overall health. Numerous factors, such as a person's socioeconomic standing, the career options available to them, their level of education, and the amount of social support they receive in their community, all play a significant role in determining their health outcomes. When people are unable to receive these determinants as a result of structural constraints, it is difficult to argue that the resulting health disparities are fair (Islam, 2019). From an ethical point of view, societies have the responsibility to fulfil the moral imperative of providing fair health outcomes for all of their people. People should not be at a disadvantage due to variables that are beyond their control, such as their race or socioeconomic status, as this goes against the principles of justice and fairness. According to Tulchinsky (2018), these concepts are incongruent with health inequalities, which are the outcome of systemic and structural problems.

Because it is their responsibility, institutions and governments alike have a part to play in addressing inequalities that exist in terms of health outcomes. Spending money on targeted outreach initiatives, affordable housing, and healthcare are all examples of policies that can help level the playing field by addressing the underlying causes of inequality. These are all examples of the kinds of policies that can help level the playing field. According to Saunders et al. (2017), societies may display their commitment to fairness and justice in the world of health by actively working towards the elimination of the structures that enable inequities. This is one way that societies can exhibit their dedication to fairness and justice in the area of health. It is accurate to claim that the differences in health outcomes, particularly those that are connected with coronary heart disease, are capable of being classified as "unfair." The historical backdrop, the socioeconomic determinants of health, the structural disparities, and the ethical challenges all work together to underline how unfair these discrepancies are by the very nature of their existence. This is because the socioeconomic determinants of health, the structural inequalities, and the ethical difficulties all work together. Individual agency and responsibility are highly important; yet, it is crucial to understand these concepts in the context of the wider structural hurdles that prevent certain groups from attaining their full potential (Roszkowska, P., & Melé, 2021). Individual agency and responsibility are very important. To truly eliminate the unfairness of health disparities, concerted efforts are required to address systemic injustices and ensure that everyone has the same opportunity to live healthy lives.

Societal Influences in CHD

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is not solely the product of an individual's own choices regarding their way of life, but it is also heavily influenced by the wider socioeconomic context in which a person lives. CHD can be prevented by making healthy lifestyle choices and avoiding risk factors. According to Mannoh et al. (2021), the onset and progression of coronary heart disease (CHD) are both influenced by a number of sociocultural factors. These factors, in turn, have an impact on the prevalence of the illness and the outcomes of it. The first factor is that the socioeconomic divide in society has a substantial impact on the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) in the population. A lower socioeconomic status is related with a number of unfavourable consequences, some of which are a lack of access to medical care, less favourable housing circumstances, and less educational chances.

According to the findings of Leonard et al. (2017), these factors can lead to higher levels of stress, bad habits, and increased exposure to CHD risk factors such as poor eating, inactivity, and smoking. The second effect of urbanisation is its impact on the environment, which manifests itself as sedentary lifestyles, increasing pollution levels, and decreased access to green areas. Urbanisation has two effects: the first is that it reduces the amount of green space available. According to Bhatnagar (2017), these factors may have an effect on the levels of physical activity, respiratory health, and stress that people experience. All three of these factors are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). As a third component, the availability of nutrient-dense meals is also influenced by a variety of sociological and economic circumstances. In regions where there is a lack of availability of fresh produce, whole grains, and healthy fats, people frequently resort to more affordable processed foods that are rich in unhealthy fats, sugars, and sodium. These processed foods are often high in sodium. These processed foods often contain a significant amount of added sugars. These dietary practises, according to Said et al. (2018), increase the possibility of acquiring diabetes, hypertension, and obesity; all three of these conditions are risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD).

Long-term stress is the result of multiple factors coming together, the fourth of which is a lack of work-life balance, challenging jobs, and cultural expectations. Chronic stress is associated with risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD), such as unhealthy behaviours, high blood pressure, and inflammation, according to Kivikaki and Steptoe (2018). In addition, societal variables have a role in determining whether persons have access to healthcare services such as emergency medical interventions and preventative care. These services include preventive care and emergency medical interventions. People who are marginalised have a larger possibility of having coronary heart disease risk factors that are either incorrectly identified or not treated appropriately because of poor access to medical treatment. This puts these individuals at a higher risk of dying from the condition. Both the use of social media and exposure to various forms of advertising can have an effect on one's eating habits. Partridge et al. (2017) found that aggressive promotion of unhealthy diets and sedentary habits can lead to the development of coronary heart disease risk factors.

The genesis of health disparities in coronary heart disease outcomes as well as their continued existence are both highly influenced by the characteristics of society in which we live. The aforementioned sociocultural difficulties are among the many factors that might contribute to disparities in the prevalence of coronary heart disease (CHD), as well as in its management and the outcomes for different groups of people living in the same community. Inequalities and gaps in socioeconomic status contribute to unequal access to resources, which in turn influences the outcomes of coronary heart disease (CHD). People who originate from families with lower socioeconomic backgrounds have a higher chance of acquiring coronary heart disease (CHD) because they have less access to high-quality medical treatment, unhealthy diets, and safe neighbourhoods. This puts them at a higher risk of developing the condition. There are differences in both the incidence and the results as a direct consequence of this. (Schultz and co-workers, 2018) Disparities. Chronic stress may be a factor that contributes to an elevated risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in ethnic minorities that are subject to discrimination or social exclusion. According to the findings of a study that was conducted in 2021 by Hussain and colleagues, cultural factors can have an effect not only on the eating practises of individuals but also on their attitudes towards health.

Variables that are traceable to society, such as the accessibility of medical treatment and the state of the environment, are contributors to these discrepancies. People who live in locations that are underserved may not have access to timely treatments and preventative care, which has the potential to have a negative impact on the outcomes of their health concerns. The social environment has an effect on an individual's choices of behaviour, which in turn has an effect on the course of coronary heart disease (CHD). According to Goodyear et al.'s 2021, different demographic subgroups of the population have varying degrees of physical activity, varying levels of dietary quality, and varying smoking rates. These differences can be attributed to cultural norms, advertising, and the availability of resources.

Two examples of instances of social factors that influence individuals' access to medical information and care are public health programmes and healthcare policy. According to research that was conducted in 2018 by Magnani and colleagues, individuals who have limited access to healthcare and health education are less likely to appropriately manage risk factors, which has a deleterious impact on the outcomes of coronary heart disease (CHD). The impact of these factors is most readily apparent in the observable differences in the outcomes of CHD. Because these sociocultural variables are a major contributor to variations in the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), management of CHD, and outcomes for different groups within the community, it is essential to address them in order to decrease health inequities.

Policies That Address the Inequality

The United Kingdom has developed a wide range of distinct policies and programmes in attempt to combat the health disparities that are associated with coronary heart disease (CHD), in particular. The government of the United Kingdom has enacted a variety of policies and initiatives, the most notable of which being the "Fair Society, Healthy Lives" policy, in an effort to lessen the number of health inequalities that are prevalent throughout the country. According to Local Government Australia (2017), this strategy lays an emphasis on the requirement of addressing the necessity of confronting social determinants of health, such as poverty, education, and employment. This method intends to achieve its objective of eliminating discrepancies in health outcomes by lessening the gaps that already exist in the world. Programmes such as Change4Life, which focus on regions with large levels of health inequality, aim to promote healthy habits by educating people about them, running campaigns to increase awareness, and offering access to resources. These programmes educate people about healthy behaviours; they also run campaigns; and they provide access to resources. According to the United Kingdom Government (2017), the key objectives of these programmes are to improve people's diets, increase the amount of physical activity they obtain, and decrease the number of individuals who smoke cigarettes. People between the ages of 40 and 74 are eligible to receive free health checks from the National Health Service (NHS). The purpose of these tests is to determine a person's chance of acquiring coronary heart disease (CHD) and other ailments. Tanner and colleagues' research from 2022 suggests that this may help eliminate inconsistencies in diagnosis and treatment by making it easier to identify and manage risk factors at an earlier stage.

Patients who are participating in social prescribing are directed to local activities and services in an effort to improve their overall health. It recognises the bigger factors that determine health and can contribute to the resolution of problems that contribute to health disparities. Because of the negative effects of alcohol on one's health, such as coronary heart disease, Scotland implemented minimum unit pricing for alcoholic beverages. According to Wyper et al. (2023), the purpose of this strategy is to reduce alcohol consumption overall, but especially among heavy drinkers who are members of lower socioeconomic categories. Laws that prohibit smoking in enclosed public locations, including workplaces, are in place to protect employees' health. These laws are an attempt to promote healthier environments while simultaneously lowering smoking rates, which is a significant risk factor for coronary heart disease (Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020).

Despite the fact that the United Kingdom has taken steps to eliminate health disparities, the success of these programmes and how they have been implemented have yielded contradictory results.Campaigns aimed at increasing public awareness of healthy behaviours have been successful, but altering behaviours will continue to take persistent effort and devotion over the course of a lengthy period of time. According to Holding et al. (2021), the efficacy of these campaigns might vary widely depending on a person's socioeconomic standing as well as the accessibility of various resources.Despite the efforts of the NHS to make healthcare available to everyone, particularly those from marginalised areas, access to medical treatment is still challenging in the United Kingdom. In poor regions, a delay in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD) may occur as a result of lengthy wait times and a lack of access to healthcare services. It is crucial to develop strategies that address social determinants of health (Mackintosh et al., 2020). It is important to take a social determinants of health approach.

Because they entail addressing deeply ingrained structural difficulties such as poverty and educational imbalance, it is probable that it will take some time for the consequences of these strategies to become apparent. It is possible that certain tactics will prove to be more successful in particular places than in others on account of differences in the socioeconomic climate and the structure of the healthcare system in those regions. It is possible to increase the effectiveness of policies by adapting them to meet the particular requirements of particular communities. It is necessary to have both political backing and consistent funding in order for initiatives to continue to have any chance of being successful. According to the findings of a study that was conducted in 2020 by Pereno and Eriksson, it may become more challenging to make progress in the battle against health disparities if the goals of the government shift in addition to there being a decline in the amount of financial support available. An improvement in the quality of data collecting can help throw light on the question of whether or not policies are having the impacts that were intended and are reaching the people who were targeted. Many different elements and aspects can be responsible for health disparities that exist between groups of people. According to Dye et al.'s (2019) findings, policies that concentrate on a single component may not have much of an impact because there are no holistic solutions that address numerous different health problems.In order to make headway in lowering health disparities, particularly those that are associated with coronary heart disease (CHD), it is vital to take a comprehensive and multifaceted approach that targets social determinants, improves access to healthcare, and assures the sustainability of policy. In order to ensure that these policies have the desired effect of delivering more equal health outcomes across a wide variety of demographic groupings, it is vital that they undergo routine evaluations and adjustments that are driven by data (Lopez et al., 2022).

Recommendations

A Universal Basic Income, also known as UBI, is one political solution that might be considered with the objective of further reducing the amount of health disparities that now exist in the United Kingdom (UK). A universal basic income is a policy that is established by the government of a nation that comprises making regular cash payments that are not dependent on anyone's capacity to work or any other considerations. This policy is known as a universal basic income guarantee. Another name for this plan is a "guaranteed minimum income." The use of this strategy has the potential to minimise health disparities for a variety of reasons, all of which are individually important. The universal basic income (UBI) is an initiative that takes a direct aim at socioeconomic position, which the World Health Organisation (2019) identifies as one of the primary factors that contribute to health inequalities. By providing a consistent financial cushion to all individuals, regardless of their level of income, UBI has the potential to assist in the fight against poverty and reduce the gaps in health outcomes that are often the product of economic disadvantage. This is because UBI has the power to help fight against poverty and minimise the gaps in health outcomes that are typically the result of economic disadvantage. According to Gibson et al. (2018), one of the key contributors to mental health problems as well as chronic stress, both of which can have a snowball impact on an individual's physical health and raise the risk of illnesses such as heart disease. One of the primary contributors to mental health problems as well as chronic stress.

The universal basic income (UBI) might help people feel more secure and reduce the amount of anxiety they experience about their financial destiny, which would be helpful to both their mental and physical health. If individuals had access to UBI, they might feel more empowered to make decisions regarding their own healthcare. It is feasible that individuals would be more likely to seek preventative care, adhere to treatment programmes, and attend medical visits if they had a guarantee over their income. It is probable that this will result in an improvement in the treatment of several health diseases, most notably disorders associated with coronary heart disease. An unconditional basic income (UBI) could give people access to the tools they need to make decisions that are beneficial for their health. According to Bidadanure (2019), one of the most important factors in reducing the risk of coronary heart disease is having the financial means to purchase healthier food selections, engaging in regular physical activity, and avoiding risky behaviours such as smoking. Having a secure financial situation improves a person's capacity to carry out all of these activities. Even in the event that a universal basic income is made available, those with lower incomes and members of groups who are already on the margins of society may be negatively affected to a higher degree. These are the groups of people who, on average, have the biggest racial and ethnic health disparities in the country.

By directing support towards people with the greatest need, UBI has the potential to lessen the health disparities that exist between different socioeconomic groups. The UBI empowers individuals to make decisions that are best suited for them in light of their unique situations (9Gentilini et al., 2019). This can be especially important for persons who fall into socioeconomic groups who are on the lower end and have a harder time getting access to conventional aid programmes. They are allowed to allocate the funds in line with their own requirements, which may include paying for medical expenses, thanks to the UBI programme. Traditional welfare programmes based on means testing usually involve difficult eligibility standards and administrative procedures, which may deter people who are eligible for assistance from applying for it. UBI simplifies the process by providing all recipients with a payout in the form of simple cash. This reduces the burden of administrative work and ensures that those who are in need of help will receive it (Johnson & Roberto, 2020).

It is essential to keep in mind that even if there is the possibility that Universal Basic Income could help minimise health disparities, it is necessary to remember that putting such a policy into effect would require extensive thought and planning. It is important to give serious consideration to the expenses, the sources of finance, and the possibility of unanticipated consequences. According to Johnson and Johnson (2019), universal basic income (UBI) should be considered as a component of a comprehensive plan that also includes particular healthcare interventions, social assistance efforts, and educational programmes.Last but not least, the implementation of a Universal Basic Income in the United Kingdom (UK) has the potential to be an effective political strategy for further lowering existing health disparities. UBI has the potential to improve health outcomes, including those pertaining to coronary heart disease, by reducing socioeconomic inequities, supporting healthy practises, and guaranteeing that individuals have financial security.

Conclusion

In contemporary civilizations, there is a complex web of relationships that exists between politics, social institutions, and health outcomes. In order to better comprehend these relationships, in-depth research is required. This complexity is never more apparent than it is in the United Kingdom (UK), where health inequities have become a poignant lens through which to investigate the interweaving dynamics of society and politics in the face of shifting socioeconomic landscapes and a dynamic political arena. This complexity is never more visible anywhere else in the world. In recent years, this theme, which focuses on the intertwining of society and politics, has become an issue of increasing significance. In the context of the United Kingdom in particular, health equity and inequality are not distinct occurrences but are, rather, intimately linked into the larger social and political structure. These disparities in health, which show themselves in conditions such as coronary heart disease (CHD), provide insight on the complex interplay that exists between the cultural factors and governmental decisions that are in place. When examined more closely, these disparities show a web of structural injustices that are influenced by factors including social standing, racial identity, geographic location, and access to medical treatment.

Variations in socioeconomic status are significantly associated with CHD outcomes, and this link is significant. There is a clear gradient in the incidence and outcomes of coronary heart disease that is influenced by one's occupation, degree of education, and income. This gradient may be seen in both the United States and other countries. This underlines the significant impact that socioeconomic factors have on an individual's cardiovascular health as well as the fact that those who live in underdeveloped areas have a higher risk of early death due to coronary heart disease (CHD). Ethnicity also has a key influence in determining the outcomes of coronary heart disease, which is another reason why there are substantial racial differences in both the prevalence of coronary heart disease and the treatment for it. Communities that have Black, African, and other minority ancestry (BAME) roots are typically burdened with a higher risk of coronary heart disease and the risk factors connected to it, which exacerbates existing health inequities. The already significant disparities in health care that exist throughout the UK are brought into sharper relief by the country's varied topography. There is a complicated web of interaction between regional policy, access to healthcare, and societal factors that leads in certain regions having higher rates of CHD-related hospital admissions and death. This is one of the reasons why certain regions have higher rates of CHD-related hospital admissions and mortality. When it comes to the process of lowering or maintaining CHD disparities, having access to healthcare services is an essential component. It is difficult to provide timely and effective care due to extended waiting periods, restricted access to specialised treatments, and financial constraints. This problem disproportionately impacts persons who are already on the outskirts of society. Strong policy frameworks are required in order to fill these voids, as they are a prerequisite for closing the gaps.

In an effort to reduce the prevalence of health disparities, the government of the United Kingdom has launched a number of initiatives, such as the "Fair Society, Healthy Lives" initiative and the "Change4Life" project, among other public health campaigns and initiatives. On the other hand, the degree of success that a policy has may be highly variable due to the complexity of inequality and the difficulties associated with putting it into effect. The introduction of a political policy known as Universal Basic Income (UBI), which has the potential to cut health disparities even further, is currently the topic of discussion. UBI has the potential to ease the stressors associated with poverty, provide people the freedom to make decisions that are better for their health, and improve access to medical treatment by directly addressing socioeconomic determinants. This has the potential to make UBI a viable policy option.

References

Bhatnagar A. (2017). Environmental Determinants of Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation research, 121(2), 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.306458

Bidadanure, J. U. (2019). The political theory of universal basic income. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 481-501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-070954

Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). Smoke free Policies Reduce Smoking. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand-smoke/protection/reduce-smoking.htm

D'Anna, L. H., Hansen, M., Mull, B., Canjura, C., Lee, E., & Sumstine, S. (2018). Social Discrimination and Health Care: A Multidimensional Framework of Experiences among a Low-Income Multiethnic Sample. Social work in public health, 33(3), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371918.2018.1434584

Disler, R., Glenister, K., & Wright, J. (2020). Rural chronic disease research patterns in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand: a systematic integrative review. BMC public health, 20(1), 770. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08912-1

Dye, B. A., Duran, D. G., Murray, D. M., Creswell, J. W., Richard, P., Farhat, T., Breen, N., & Engelgau, M. M. (2019). The Importance of Evaluating Health Disparities Research. American journal of public health, 109(S1), S34–S40. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304808

European Commission. (2021). Improving access to healthcare through more powerful measurement tools. https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-10/measuring_access-to-healthcare_en_0.pdf

Gentilini, U., Grosh, M., Rigolini, J., & Yemtsov, R. (Eds.). (2019). Exploring universal basic income: A guide to navigating concepts, evidence, and practices. World Bank Publications. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=00XEDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT12&dq=universal+basic+income&ots=HbWCQegO1q&sig=6d5u6zrLheSgzfXc_rNA7Cj__KM

Gibson, M., Hearty, W., & Craig, P. (2018). Universal basic income: A scoping review of evidence on impacts and study characteristics. Edinburgh: What Works Scotland. http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/WhatWorksScotlandBasicIncomeScopingReview1210FINAL.pdf

Goff, L. M. (2019). Ethnicity and type 2 diabetes in the UK. Diabetic Medicine, 36(8), 927-938. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13895

Goodyear, V. A., Wood, G., Skinner, B., & Thompson, J. L. (2021). The effect of social media interventions on physical activity and dietary behaviours in young people and adults: a systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 18(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-021-01138-3

Government of the UK. (2017). New Change4Life campaign encourages parents to ‘Be Food Smart’. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-change4life-campaign-encourages-parents-to-be-food-smart

Government of the UK. (2022).Health disparities and health inequalities: applying All Our Health. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/health-disparities-and-health-

Harris, C., Green, S., & Elshaug, A. G. (2017). Sustainability in Health care by Allocating Resources Effectively (SHARE) 10: operationalising disinvestment in a conceptual framework for resource allocation. BMC health services research, 17(1), 632. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2506-7

Holding, E., Fairbrother, H., Griffin, N., Wistow, J., Powell, K., & Summerbell, C. (2021). Exploring the local policy context for reducing health inequalities in children and young people: an in depth qualitative case study of one local authority in the North of England, UK. BMC public health, 21(1), 887. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10782-0

Hussain, M., Howell, J. L., Peek, M. K., Stowe, R. P., & Zawadzki, M. J. (2021). Psychosocial stressors predict lower cardiovascular disease risk among Mexican-American adults living in a high-risk community: Findings from the Texas City Stress and Health Study. PloS one, 16(10), e0257940. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257940

Islam M. M. (2019). Social Determinants of Health and Related Inequalities: Confusion and Implications. Frontiers in public health, 7, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00011

Johnson, A. F., & Roberto, K. J. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Time for a universal basic income?. Public administration and development : a journal of the Royal Institute of Public Administration, 40(4), 232–235. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1891

Johnson, M. T., & Johnson, E. (2019). Stress, domination and basic income: considering a citizens’ entitlement response to a public health crisis. Social Theory & Health, 17, 253-271. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41285-018-0076-3

Khan, S. U., Nguyen, R. T., Javed, Z., Singh, M., Valero-Elizondo, J., Cainzos-Achirica, M., & Nasir, K. (2022). Socioeconomic status, cardiovascular risk profile, and premature coronary heart disease. American journal of preventive cardiology, 11, 100368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpc.2022.100368

Kivimäki, M., & Steptoe, A. (2018). Effects of stress on the development and progression of cardiovascular disease. Nature Reviews Cardiology, 15(4), 215-229. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2017.189

Leonard, T., Hughes, A. E., & Pruitt, S. L. (2017). Understanding how low-socioeconomic status households cope with health shocks: An analysis of multi-sector linked data. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 669(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216680989

Local Government Australia. (2017). Marmot Review report – 'Fair Society, Healthy Lives. https://www.local.gov.uk/marmot-review-report-fair-society-healthy-lives

Lopez, K. N., Baker-Smith, C., Flores, G., Gurvitz, M., Karamlou, T., Nunez Gallegos, F., Pasquali, S., Patel, A., Peterson, J. K., Salemi, J. L., Yancy, C., Peyvandi, S., & American Heart Association Congenital Cardiac Defects Committee of the Council on Lifelong Congenital Heart Disease and Heart Health in the Young; Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; and Council on Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health (2022). Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Mitigating Health Disparities Across the Lifespan in Congenital Heart Disease: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Journal of the American Heart Association, 11(8), e025358. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.025358

Mackintosh, N. J., Davis, R. E., Easter, A., Rayment-Jones, H., Sevdalis, N., Wilson, S., Adams, M., & Sandall, J. (2020). Interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness in community health and hospital settings. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 12(12), CD012829. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012829.pub2

Magnani, J. W., Mujahid, M. S., Aronow, H. D., Cené, C. W., Dickson, V. V., Havranek, E., Morgenstern, L. B., Paasche-Orlow, M. K., Pollak, A., Willey, J. Z., & American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention; Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; and Stroke Council (2018). Health Literacy and Cardiovascular Disease: Fundamental Relevance to Primary and Secondary Prevention: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation, 138(2), e48–e74. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000579

Mannoh, I., Hussien, M., Commodore-Mensah, Y., & Michos, E. D. (2021). Impact of social determinants of health on cardiovascular disease prevention. Current opinion in cardiology, 36(5), 572-579. https://doi.org/10.1097/HCO.0000000000000893

McCartney, G., Hearty, W., Arnot, J., Popham, F., Cumbers, A., & McMaster, R. (2019). Impact of Political Economy on Population Health: A Systematic Review of Reviews. American journal of public health , 109 (6), e1–e12. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305001

McMaughan, D. J., Oloruntoba, O., & Smith, M. L. (2020). Socioeconomic Status and Access to Healthcare: Interrelated Drivers for Healthy Aging. Frontiers in public health, 8, 231. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00231

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communities in action: Pathways to health equity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425845/

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communities in action: Pathways to health equity. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425845/

NIH. (2022). Coronary Heart Disease. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/coronary-heart-disease

O'Neil, A., Russell, J. D., Thompson, K., Martinson, M. L., & Peters, S. A. E. (2020). The impact of socioeconomic position (SEP) on women's health over the lifetime. Maturitas, 140, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2020.06.001

Paavola, J. (2017). Health impacts of climate change and health and social inequalities in the UK. Environmental Health, 16(1), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-017-0328-z

Partridge, S. R., Grunseit, A. C., Gallagher, P., Freeman, B., O'Hara, B. J., Neubeck, L., Due, S., Paull, G., Ding, D., Bauman, A., Phongsavan, P., Roach, K., Sadler, L., Glinatsis, H., & Gallagher, R. (2017). Cardiac Patients' Experiences and Perceptions of Social Media: Mixed-Methods Study. Journal of medical Internet research, 19(9), e323. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8081

Pereno, A., & Eriksson, D. (2020). A multi-stakeholder perspective on sustainable healthcare: From 2030 onwards. Futures, 122, 102605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2020.102605

References

Riegel, B., Moser, D. K., Buck, H. G., Dickson, V. V., Dunbar, S. B., Lee, C. S., Lennie, T. A., Lindenfeld, J., Mitchell, J. E., Treat-Jacobson, D. J., Webber, D. E., & American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease; and Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research (2017). Self-Care for the Prevention and Management of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke: A Scientific Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association. Journal of the American Heart Association, 6(9), e006997. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.117.006997

Roszkowska, P., & Melé, D. (2021). Organizational factors in the individual ethical behaviour. The notion of the “organizational moral structure”. Humanistic Management Journal, 6, 187-209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-020-00080-z

Said, M. A., Verweij, N., & van der Harst, P. (2018). Associations of combined genetic and lifestyle risks with incident cardiovascular disease and diabetes in the UK Biobank Study. JAMA cardiology, 3(8), 693-702. 10.1001/jamacardio.2018.1717

Saunders, M., Barr, B., McHale, P., & Hamelmann, C. (2017). Key policies for addressing the social determinants of health and health inequities. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK453571/

Schultz, W. M., Kelli, H. M., Lisko, J. C., Varghese, T., Shen, J., Sandesara, P., ... & Sperling, L. S. (2018). Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular outcomes: challenges and interventions. Circulation, 137(20), 2166-2178. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.029652

Shah, K. S., Patel, J., Rifai, M. A., Agarwala, A., Bhatt, A. B., Levitzky, Y. S., & Palaniappan, L. (2022). Cardiovascular Risk Management in the South Asian Patient: A Review. Health sciences review (Oxford, England), 4, 100045. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hsr.2022.100045

Tanner, L., Kenny, R., Still, M., Ling, J., Pearson, F., Thompson, K., & Bhardwaj-Gosling, R. (2022). NHS Health Check programme: a rapid review update. BMJ open, 12(2), e052832. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052832

Tchicaya, A., Lorentz, N., Demarest, S., & Beissel, J. (2018). Persistence of socioeconomic inequalities in the knowledge of cardiovascular risk factors five years after coronary angiography. European journal of cardiovascular nursing, 17(2), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515117720789

The Health Foundation. (2022). Major study outlines wide health inequalities in England . https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/major-study-outlines-wi

The Strategy Unit. (2022). Socio-economic inequalities in coronary heart disease. https://www.strategyunitwm.nhs.uk/publications/socio-economic-inequalities-coronary-heart-

Thompson, S. C., Nedkoff, L., Katzenellenbogen, J., Hussain, M. A., & Sanfilippo, F. (2019). Challenges in Managing Acute Cardiovascular Diseases and Follow Up Care in Rural Areas: A Narrative Review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(24), 5126. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16245126

Tulchinsky T. H. (2018). Ethical Issues in Public Health. Case Studies in Public Health, 277–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804571-8.00027-5

University of Sunderland. (2021). The impact of health inequalities in the UK. https://online.sunderland.ac.uk/the-impact-of-health-inequalities-in-the-uk/

WHO. (2018). Health inequities and their causes. https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/health-inequities-and-their-causes

WHO. (2019). Universal basic income policies and their potential for addressing health inequities. https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1497952/retrieve

WHO. (2023). Health equity. https://www.who.int/health-topics/health-equity#tab=tab_1

Williams, E., Buck, D., Babola, G., & Maguire, D. (2022). What are health inequalities? https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/what-are-health-inequalities#factors

Wyper, G. M., Mackay, D. F., Fraser, C., Lewsey, J., Robinson, M., Beeston, C., & Giles, L. (2023). Evaluating the impact of alcohol minimum unit pricing on deaths and hospitalisations in Scotland: a controlled interrupted time series study. The Lancet, 401(10385), 1361-1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00497-X

You Might Also Like:-

Medical Science Assignment Help

Importance of Effective Communication in Nursing