womens_health.gif (1647 bytes)
Child Care Report
Golden Years
Health Inequality
  1. Introduction
  2. Material Deprivation
  3. Social Deprivation
  4. Deprivation in the South East
  5. Conclusion
1. Introduction

The man in the street knows that poverty is bad for health. In addition, the international evidence on inequalities in health between different sections of society is compelling. People who live in disadvantaged circumstances have more illness and disability and shorter lives than those with a better standard of living.1 As far back as 1981, Nolan2 showed that Irish men in higher professional positions had a mortality ratio in middle age which was one third that of men in unskilled occupations. The proportion of adults reporting chronic illness was twice as high for unskilled as for professional occupations. Lyons et al3 confirmed this finding in their study in Dublin. Johnson4,5 showed higher death rates in electoral wards in disadvantaged areas in Dublin.

The size of the differences in health status varies between countries and between different time periods, and this would suggest that there is nothing fixed or inevitable about having such a health divide. Greater overall prosperity and improved living standards have led to significant health gains in this century. However inequalities in health remain and the gap between socio-economic groups is widening particularly for young men.6

The explanations as to the causes of inequalities in health are complex and it can be difficult to separate the various causes. A combination of factors; including peoples living and working conditions, their economic and personal resources, their social relationships and lifestyles are likely to contribute. Much health related behaviour is socially determined. The cumulative effect over a lifetime, of health damaging or health promoting physical and social environments may be the main cause of the differences.

Deprivation influences health from conception through childhood, into adulthood and old age. Davey Smith7 showed the cumulative effect of socio-economic factors over a lifetime. The socio-economic classification of occupations was divided into manual occupations, non manual occupations, managerial and professional occupations; class IV and V being manual and class I or II being professional and managerial. Men who were born to fathers with manual jobs and who were in manual jobs themselves, had age adjusted standardised mortality ratios 70% higher than those who themselves, and their fathers, had non manual jobs. For those who moved between the occupational classes over the course of their lifetime, their mortality experience lay somewhere in between. Several studies have been reported which link socio-economic conditions at birth and in childhood with a range of adult diseases. Davey Smith 1998,8 attempted to separate these effects from the effect of continuing deprivation in adult life. Social class in childhood had a specific effect on mortality from stroke and stomach cancer and had an additive effect on deaths from coronary heart disease and lung diseases. For other diseases and cancers it was the risk factors present in adult life that were more important.

top.gif (1073 bytes)

2. Material Deprivation

In general, the lower the material standard of living (measured by indicators such as income, car ownership, etc.) the worse, the level of health. There is growing evidence that the relative distribution of income matters in its own right, for population health. The experience of relative poverty means that people go short of things considered essential or normal by others around them. It excludes people socially and materially from the normal life of society. This sense of being at a relative disadvantage may be an important indirect influence on health in developed countries by increasing the likelihood of behavioural risks e.g. smoking, drinking, "comfort" eating.9

Mortality is related more closely to relative income within countries than to absolute income between them. National mortality rates tend to be lowest in countries with smaller income differences.

 

3. Social Deprivation

A society with greater income equality improves social cohesion and reduces social divisions and marginalisation. Integration within a social network benefits health. Socially isolated people die at 2-3 times the rate of people with a network of social relationships. Kawachi10 puts forward the theory that this could equally apply to communities. He demonstrated an association between mortality and low levels of participation in community activities and measures of civic distrust in 39 states of the U.S. These were in turn highly correlated with the degree of income inequality in each state.

top.gif (1073 bytes)

4. Deprivation in the South East

A number of indicators of material deprivation have been formulated internationally. The Directors of Public Health of the eight Health Boards requested the Small Area Health Research Unit to develop a suitable deprivation measure for Ireland. The index is statistically calculated from census data for small geographical areas on; unemployment, social class, proportion of rented accommodation, over crowding and car ownership.11

It should be noted that this index is a mathematical calculation, which shows the ranking of areas from most affluent to most deprived. It does not measure the deprivation level of individuals or imply that individuals in such areas experience extreme hardship.

The following maps outline the South Eastern Health Board and gives the 518 district electoral divisions (DED) for the region. The deprivation index level was calculated for each DED population. The index ranges from level one (most affluent) to level five (most deprived).

The following maps show the deprivation level for each DED in the region, by county. Because rural district electoral divisions are larger than urban ones, rural deprived areas tend to stand out visually more than the urban ones.

District Electoral Division areas classified as level four or five can be considered as deprived areas. Table 2.1 shows the number of DEDs in each county.

Table 2.1 Number of DEDs in each County

County Number of DEDs
Carlow 54
Kilkenny 113
Tipperary South 98
Waterford 96
Waterford CB 34
Wexford 123

Source: Small Area Research Unit

top.gif (1073 bytes)

Table 2.2 shows the number of DEDs at each deprivation index level and the proportion of the total that this represents.

Table 2.2 No. and Proportion of DEDs at each deprivation level.

Deprivation Index Number of DEDs Proportion
1 119 22.9
2 183 35.3
3 110 21.2
4 64 12.3
5 42 8.1
Deprived 4+5 106 20.4
Total 518 100

Source: Small Area Research Unit

It can be seen that 20% of the DEDs in the South East are categorised as deprived areas.

Table 2.3 shows the proportion of the population in each county who live in deprived areas (level four or five district electoral divisions). Not everyone living in these areas is deprived, but rather represents the average level of material deprivation.

Table 2.3 The Proportion of the Population in each county that live in Deprived Areas (Levels 4 + 5)

County County Population Country Level 4 Population County Level 5 Population

% County Population

Level 4 area Level 5 area
Carlow   40,642   12,157   8,112 29.2 20.0
Kilkenny   73,635   10,335   6,906 14.0 9.4
Tipp South   74,918   17,084   19,289 22.8 25.7
Waterford   91,624   7,858   23,737 8.6 25.9
Wexford   102,069   20,742   19,757 20.3 19.4
SEHB   382,888   68,176   7,7801 17.8 20.3

 
This shows that overall 20% of the population of each county living in the most deprived areas (level 5) and that this varies considerably between counties from 9% in Kilkenny to 26% in Waterford and South Tipperary. The table also shows the proportion in each county living in deprived areas (level 4), which again varies considerably.

Table 2.4 shows the proportion of people in each county that live in deprived areas, (level 4 and 5), and also shows the proportion of the population of the South Eastern Health Board region as a whole, that live in deprived areas in each county.

Table 2.4 The proportion of the population in each county that live in deprived areas (Level 4 + 5, Column 3) and the proportion of the population of the SEHB region that live in deprived areas in each county (Column 4)

County County Population County
Level 4 & 5 Population
% County Population in area Level 4 & 5 % Regional Pop. in deprived areas in the county (Level 4&5)
Carlow    40,642    20,269 49.9 5.3
Kilkenny    73,635    17,241 23.4 4.5
Tipp South    74,918    36,373 48.6 9.5
Waterford    91,624    31,595 34.5 8.3
Wexford    102,069    40,499 39.7 10.6
SEHB    382,888    145,977 38.1 38.1

 
Source: Small Area Research Unit

It can be seen that while Carlow (50%) and South Tipperary (49%) have the largest proportions of people living in deprived areas within their counties, Wexford (11%) followed by South Tipperary (9%) have the highest proportions of the population of the region living in deprived areas.

Figure 2.1 Material Deprivation Index for Carlow by DED

Source: Small Area Research Unit

Figure 2.1 shows the material deprivation index for Carlow. Five DEDs had deprivation level 5, i.e. the "most deprived". These were; Rathvilly, Graigue urban, Bagenalstown urban, Tullow urban and Hackettstown. A total of 8,112 people live in the "most deprived" areas, which represents 20% of the population of the county. A further six DEDs had deprivation level of 4 which is also "deprived". These were Myshall, Clogrennan, Carlow urban, Fenagh, Coonogue and Borris. A total of 20,569 people lived in these deprived DED areas, (level 4 and 5). This represents a large proportion (50%) of the population of County Carlow.

This high proportion of the population of the county, living in deprived areas and the knowledge that average health status of the people of Carlow is poorer than the rest of the region, warrants particular resources to be targeted at Carlow.

Figure 2.2 Material Deprivation Index for Kilkenny by DED


Source: Small Area Research Unit

Figure 2.2 shows the deprivation index for Co. Kilkenny. There were three DED levels with index level 5, the most deprived. These were Urlingford, Kilkenny No. 1 urban and Callan urban. A total of 6,906 people live in the "most deprived" areas, which represents 9% of the population of the county. There were nine DEDs with the deprived index of 4. These were Castlecomer, Freshford, Jerpoint Church, Pollrone, Graiguenamanagh, Ballyragget, Goresbridge, Johnstown and Clogh. A total of 17,241 people lived in these deprived areas (level 4 and 5). This represent 23% of the population of Co. Kilkenny.

Figure 2.3 Material Deprivation Index for Waterford by DED

(This image is currently unavailable.)

Figure 2.3 gives the deprivation index for Waterford. There were twenty one DEDs with index level 5, the most deprived. These were; Ballybeg North, Larchville, Roanmore, Morrison's Avenue West, Morrison's Road, Shortcourse, Lisduggan, Mount Sion, Custom House B, The Glen, Military Road, Grange South, Newport Square, Morrison's Avenue East, Centre A, Slieve Keale, Custom House A, Kilmeadan, Dungarvan No. 1, Kilmacthomas and Portlaw. Seventeen of these twenty most deprived areas were within Waterford County Borough. A total of 23,737 people live in the "most deprived" areas, which represents 26% of the population of the county. There were thirteen DEDs with a deprivation index of 4. These were; King's Meadow, Ballybricken, Poleberry, Ferrybank, Park, Garden Morris, Clonea, Carrigcastle, Ardmore, Comeragh, Kinsalebeg, Kilmacomma and Newtown. Four of these twelve areas in level 4 were within the county borough. A total of 32,014 people lived within the deprived areas in Waterford City and County (level 4 and 5). This represents 34% of the population of the Waterford.

Figure 2.4 Material Deprivation Index for South Tipperary

Source: Small Area Research Unit

Figure 2.4 shows the material deprivation index for South Tipperary Riding. There were seven DEDs with a deprivation index of 5. These were; Carrick-on-Suir urban,

(Tipperary East urban, Clonmel West urban, New Birmingham, Ballingarry, Fethard, and Cashel urban). A total of 17,084 people live in the "most deprived" areas, which represents 23% of the population of the county. There were a further 18 DEDs with a deprivation index of 4. These were Carrickbeg urban, Killenaule, Mullinahone, Ballyphilip, Tipperary West urban, Ardfinnan, Buolick, Farranrory, Bansha, Kilcommon, Newtown, Clonmel rural, Lisronagh, Ballykisteen, Clogheen, Golden, Peppardstown and Cappagh. A total of 36,373 people lived within these deprived areas (level 4 and 5) within the county. This represented 49% of the population of Tipperary South.

Figure 2.5 Material Deprivation Index for Wexford

Source: Small Area Research Unit

Figure 2.5 shows the material deprivation index for Wexford. There were six DEDs with deprivation index level of 5. These were; Enniscorthy rural, Enniscorthy urban, New Ross urban, Taghmon, Wexford M.B., and Rosbercon urban. A total of 19,757 people live in the "most deprived" areas, which represents 19% of the population of the county. There were an additional eighteen with a deprivation index level of 4. These were Ferns, Ballycanew, Gorey urban, Clonroche, Newtownbarry, Ballyhoge, Ballygarret, Monamolin, Lady's Island, Gorey rural, Killincooly, Enniscorthy rural, Kilmokea, Ballindaggan, Kilcomb, Ballycarney, Coolgreaney and Fethard. A total of 40,499 people lived in deprived areas (level 4 and 5) in Co. Wexford. This represents 40% of the population in Wexford.

top.gif (1073 bytes)

5. Conclusion

The information presented identifies specific small areas which experience the highest levels of material deprivation in the South Eastern Health Board region. The link between deprivation and health and well being is well established. Therefore socio-economic inequalities are important in planning services to achieve health equalities and health and social gain.

It is recommended that:

The provision of health services to deprived areas be reviewed to ensure equality of access and to begin to address health inequalities. Services which have been shown to impact on health inequalities should be identified and targeted to deprived areas.

References
1  Townsend P, Davidson N. Inequalities in Health, The Black Report. Harmonds Worth;
    Penquin. 1982.
2  Nolan B. Socio Economic Differences in Ireland. Economic and Social Review 1990;
    21(2):193-208.
3  Lyons RA et al. Social Class and Chronic Illness in Dublin. Irish Medical Journal 1996;
    89:174-176.
4  Johnson Z, Lyons R. Socio Economic Factors and Mortality in Small Areas. Irish Medical
    Journal 1993; 86 (2): 60 - 62.
5  Johnson Z, Dack P. Small Area Mortality Patterns. Irish Medical Journal 1989;
    82 (3): 105-108.
6  Davey-Smith G, Bartley M, Blane D. The Black Report on Social Economic Inequalities Ten
   Years On. British Medical Journal 1990;301:373-7.
7  Davey-Smith G, Hart C, Blane D, Gillis C, Hawthorne V. Lifetime socioeconomic position and
    mortality: prospective observational study. British Medical Journal 1997;314: 547-52.
8  Davey-Smith G, Hart C, Blane D, Hole D. Adverse socio-economic conditions in childhood
   and cause specific adult mortality: prospective observational study.
   British Medical Journal 1998; 316: 1631-5.
9  Wilkinson RG. Socioeconomic determinants of of health. Health inequalities: relative or
    absolute material standards. British Medical Journal 1997; 314: 519-5.
10 Kawachi I, Kennedy BP. Health and social cohesion: why care about income inequality?.
    British Medical Journal 1997; 314 : 1037-40.
11 Small Area Research Unit. Development of a National Deprivation Index.Trinity College,
    Dublin, Report No. 2, 1997.

top.gif (1073 bytes)

| sections within Health of the South East |
| Introduction | Demography | Health Inequality | Cardiovascular Disease | Cancer |
| Women's Health | Women's Health 2000 | Communicable Diseases |
| Environmental Health - Water | Review of 1996 | Opportunities | Appendices |
| Glossary |
| sections within Publications |
| Annual ReportHealth of the SE | Child Care Report |
| Golden Years | MMR | Health Strategy | Drug Misuse | Public Health |
| Our Services | Freedom Of Information | Health PromotionPublications |
| Continuing Education | Links | News | Privacy | Contact SEHB | Home |