Objective. —To identify and quantify the major external (nongenetic) factors that contribute to death in the United States. Data Sources. —Articles published between 1977 and 1993 were identified through MEDLINE searches, reference citations, and expert consultation. Government reports and compilations of vital statistics and surveillance data were also obtained. Study Selection. —Sources selected were those that were often cited and those that indicated a quantitative assessment of the relative contributions of various factors to mortality and morbidity. Data Extraction. —Data used were those for which specific methodological assumptions were stated. A table quantifying the contributions of leading factors was constructed using actual counts, generally accepted estimates, and calculated estimates that were developed by summing various individual estimates and correcting to avoid double counting. For the factors of greatest complexity and uncertainty (diet and activity patterns and toxic agents), a conservative approach was taken by choosing the lower boundaries of the various estimates. Data Synthesis. —The most prominent contributors to mortality in the United States in 1990 were tobacco (an estimated 400000 deaths), diet and activity patterns (300 000), alcohol (100 000), microbial agents (90 000), toxic agents (60 000), firearms (35 000), sexual behavior (30 000), motor vehicles (25 000), and illicit use of drugs (20 000). Socioeconomic status and access to medical care are also important contributors, but difficult to quantify independent of the other factors cited. Because the studies reviewed used different approaches to derive estimates, the stated numbers should be viewed as first approximations. Conclusions. —Approximately half of all deaths that occurred in 1990 could be attributed to the factors identified. Although no attempt was made to further quantify the impact of these factors on morbidity and quality of life, the public health burden they impose is considerable and offers guidance for shaping health policy priorities. (JAMA. 1993;270:2207-2212)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/JAMA/articlepdf/409171/jama_270_18_038.pdf

Actual causes of death in the United States.

Part I. From There to Here - Theoretical Background: 1. From visiousness to viciousness: theories of intergroup relations 2. Social dominance theory as a new synthesis Part II. Oppression and its Psycho-Ideological Elements: 3. The psychology of group dominance: social dominance orientation 4. Let's both agree that you're really stupid: the power of consensual ideology Part III. The Circle of Oppression - The Myriad Expressions of Institutional Discrimination: 5. You stay in your part of town and I'll stay in mine: discrimination in the housing and retail markets 6. They're just too lazy to work: discrimination in the labor market 7. They're just mentally and physically unfit: discrimination in education and health care 8. The more of 'them' in prison, the better: institutional terror, social control and the dynamics of the criminal justice system Part IV. Oppression as a Cooperative Game: 9. Social hierarchy and asymmetrical group behavior: social hierarchy and group difference in behavior 10. Sex and power: the intersecting political psychologies of patriarchy and empty-set hierarchy 11. Epilogue.

http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/samples/cam032/98044356.pdf

Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression

https://isiarticles.com/bundles/Article/pre/pdf/36264.pdf

Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men's well-being: a theory of gender and health.

Over the last several decades, epidemiological studies have been enormously
successful in identifying risk factors for major diseases However, most of this
research has focused attention on risk factors that are relatively proximal causes of
disease such as diet, cholesterol level, exercise and the like We question the
emphasis on such individually-based risk factors and argue that greater attention
must be paid to basic social conditions if health reform is to have its maximum
effect in the time ahead There are two reasons for this claim First we argue that
individually-based risk factors must be contextualized, by examining what puts
people at risk of risks, if we are to craft effective interventions and improve the
nation's health Second, we argue that social factors such as socioeconomic status
and social support are likely 'fundamental causes" of disease that, because they
embody access to important resources, affect multiple disease outcomes throughmultiple mechanisms, and consequently maintain an association with disease even when intervening mechanisms change Without careful attention to these
possibilities, we run the risk of imposing individually-based intervention strategies
that are ineffective and of missing opportunities to adopt broad-based societal
interventions that could produce substantial health benefits for our citizens

Social Conditions as Fundamental Causes of Disease

Socioeconomic status (SES) is consistently associated with health outcomes, yet little is known about the psychosocial and behavioral mechanisms that might explain this association. Researchers usually control for SES rather than examine it. When it is studied, only effects of lower, poverty-level SES are generally examined. However, there is evidence of a graded association with health at all levels of SES, an observation that requires new thought about domains through which SES may exert its health effects. Variables are highlighted that show a graded relationship with both SES and health to provide examples of possible pathways between SES and health end points. Examples are also given of new analytic approaches that can better illuminate the complexities of the SES-health gradient.

Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient.

Background There is an inverse relation between socioeconomic status and mortality. Over the past several decades death rates in the United States have declined, but it is unclear whether all socioeconomic groups have benefited equally. Methods Using records from the 1986 National Mortality Followback Survey (n = 13,491) and the 1986 National Health Interview Survey (n = 30,725), we replicated the analysis by Kitagawa and Hauser of differential mortality in 1960. We calculated direct standardized mortality rates and indirect standardized mortality ratios for persons 25 to 64 years of age according to race, sex, income, and family status. Results The inverse relation between mortality and socioeconomic status persisted in 1986 and was stronger than in 1960. The disparity in mortality rates according to income and education increased for men and women, whites and blacks, and family members and unrelated persons. Over the 26-year period, the inequalities according to educational level increased for whites an...

Susan Queen

Papers

The increasing disparity in mortality between socioeconomic groups in the United States 1960 and 1986.