Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Addressing health inequities in Ontario, Canada: what solutions do the public support?

Authors: Maritt Kirst, Ketan Shankardass, Sonica Singhal, Aisha Lofters, Carles Muntaner, Carlos Quiñonez

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

As public opinion is an important part of the health equity policy agenda, it is important to assess public opinion around potential policy interventions to address health inequities. We report on public opinion in Ontario about health equity interventions that address the social determinants of health. We also examine Ontarians’ support and predictors for targeted health equity interventions versus universal interventions.

Methods

We surveyed 2,006 adult Ontarians through a telephone survey using random digit dialing. Descriptive statistics assessed Ontarians’ support for various health equity solutions, and a multinomial logistic regression model was built to examine predictors of this support across specific targeted and broader health equity interventions focused on nutrition, welfare, and housing.

Results

There appears to be mixed opinions among Ontarians regarding the importance of addressing health inequities and related solutions. Nevertheless, Ontarians were willing to support a wide range of interventions to address health inequities. The three most supported interventions were more subsidized nutritious food for children (89%), encouraging more volunteers in the community (89%), and more healthcare treatment programs (85%). Respondents who attributed health inequities to the plight of the poor were generally more likely to support both targeted and broader health equity interventions, than neither type. Political affiliation was a strong predictor of support with expected patterns, with left-leaning voters more likely to support both targeted and broader health equity interventions, and right-leaning voters less likely to support both types of interventions.

Conclusions

Findings indicate that the Ontario public is more supportive of targeted health equity interventions, but that attributions of inequities and political affiliation are important predictors of support. The Ontario public may be accepting of messaging around health inequities and the social determinants of health depending on how the message is framed (e.g., plight of the poor vs. privilege of the rich). These findings may be instructive for advocates looking to raise awareness of health inequities.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Lemstra M, Neudorf C, Beaudin G. Health Disparity Knowledge and Support for Intervention in Saskatoon. Can J Public Heal. 2007;98:484–8. Lemstra M, Neudorf C, Beaudin G. Health Disparity Knowledge and Support for Intervention in Saskatoon. Can J Public Heal. 2007;98:484–8.
4.
go back to reference Whitehead M, Dahlgren G. Concepts and principles for tackling social inequities in health: Levelling up Part. Liverpool: World Health Organization; 1990. Whitehead M, Dahlgren G. Concepts and principles for tackling social inequities in health: Levelling up Part. Liverpool: World Health Organization; 1990.
9.
go back to reference Reutter LI, Harrison MJ, Neufeld A. Public support for poverty-related policies. Can J Public Heal. 2002;93:297–302. Reutter LI, Harrison MJ, Neufeld A. Public support for poverty-related policies. Can J Public Heal. 2002;93:297–302.
10.
go back to reference Burstein P. Bringing the Public Back in : Should Sociologists Consider the Impact of Public Bringing the Public Back In : Should Sociologists Consider the Impact of Public opinion on Public Policy? Soc Forces. 1998;77:27–62.CrossRef Burstein P. Bringing the Public Back in : Should Sociologists Consider the Impact of Public Bringing the Public Back In : Should Sociologists Consider the Impact of Public opinion on Public Policy? Soc Forces. 1998;77:27–62.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Burstein P. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Polit Res Q. 2003;56:29–40.CrossRef Burstein P. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Polit Res Q. 2003;56:29–40.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Petry F, Mendelsohn M. Public Opinion and Policy Making in Canada 1994–2001. Can J Polit Sci. 2004;37:505–29.CrossRef Petry F, Mendelsohn M. Public Opinion and Policy Making in Canada 1994–2001. Can J Polit Sci. 2004;37:505–29.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Bullock HE, Williams WR, Limbert WM. Predicting Support for Welfare Policies: The Impact of Attributions and Beliefs About Inequality. J Poverty. 2003;7: doi:10.1300/J134v07n03_03. Bullock HE, Williams WR, Limbert WM. Predicting Support for Welfare Policies: The Impact of Attributions and Beliefs About Inequality. J Poverty. 2003;7: doi:10.​1300/​J134v07n03_​03.
16.
go back to reference Fuller D, Neudorf J, Bermedo-Carrasco S, Neudorf C. Classifying the population by socioeconomic factors associated with support for policies to reduce social inequalities in health. J Public Health (Oxf). 2016:1–9. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdv201. Fuller D, Neudorf J, Bermedo-Carrasco S, Neudorf C. Classifying the population by socioeconomic factors associated with support for policies to reduce social inequalities in health. J Public Health (Oxf). 2016:1–9. doi:10.​1093/​pubmed/​fdv201.
17.
go back to reference Korpi W, Palme J. The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare. Am Sociol Rev. 1998;63:661–87.CrossRef Korpi W, Palme J. The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare. Am Sociol Rev. 1998;63:661–87.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference McCombs M. Setting the Agenda: the Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2004. McCombs M. Setting the Agenda: the Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2004.
22.
go back to reference Toronto Public Health. The Unequal City 2015: Income and Health Inequities in Toronto. Toronto: 2015. Toronto Public Health. The Unequal City 2015: Income and Health Inequities in Toronto. Toronto: 2015.
26.
go back to reference Stephens C. Privilege and status in an unequal society: Shifting the focus of health promotion research to include the maintenance of advantage. J Health Psychol. 2010;15:993–1000.CrossRefPubMed Stephens C. Privilege and status in an unequal society: Shifting the focus of health promotion research to include the maintenance of advantage. J Health Psychol. 2010;15:993–1000.CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Pease B. The other site of social exclusion: Interrogating the role of the privileged in reproducing inequality. In: Taket A, Crisp BR, Nevill A, Lamaro G, Graham M, Barter-Codfrey S, editors. Theor. Soc. Exclusion. London: Routledge; 2009. p. 37–46. Pease B. The other site of social exclusion: Interrogating the role of the privileged in reproducing inequality. In: Taket A, Crisp BR, Nevill A, Lamaro G, Graham M, Barter-Codfrey S, editors. Theor. Soc. Exclusion. London: Routledge; 2009. p. 37–46.
Metadata
Title
Addressing health inequities in Ontario, Canada: what solutions do the public support?
Authors
Maritt Kirst
Ketan Shankardass
Sonica Singhal
Aisha Lofters
Carles Muntaner
Carlos Quiñonez
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3932-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Public Health 1/2017 Go to the issue