P3 Trends and Patterns in health and illness in three social groups.
There are many significant differences in humanity and illness rates which continues to occur among income groups, a section of the community whose income falls within a certain range, and social classes, individuals and groups are considered on the sources of respect and status which is learnt mostly through financial success and the growth of wealth. Social class may also refer to any particular level in such a grading, in most developed countries. The fact reminds us of the significance of social and economic causes of health. There is small uncertainty that the low average of living and persistence of total poverty in the developing world are the main factors of health in developing countries.
We have the knowledge that our life routes are socially and economically planned and is genetically determined, which changes the determinants of population health into a social science. Medical sciences speak about the biological paths involved in diseases. There are many opportunities for treatment, but so far health is a social creation and some forms of social organization tend to be healthier than others. To advance our understanding of health all depends on collective research. There was change in public health and there was a sudden rise in life expectancy in developing societies. Life expectancy in more developed societies has increased at the rate of two to three years added to life in the 20th century. The increases in our population’s life expectancy have mainly come from the decrease in infant and childhood deaths, as a result of this a more higher percent of the population now lives to old age.
The idea of the change in public health is used to represent the change in developing countries from infectious diseases as the main cause of death to progressive diseases. There is the reflection of variation that shows the curve of life expectancy that compares the increases of income in the more developed countries of the mid to late twentieth century. The levels of economic growth rises due to the standard of living and income. The process of the technical changes and develop is where we find that the levels of health and life expectancies begin to increase gradually. There is a marking due to the change in social patterns and also the distribution of disease. Diseases of affluence such as heart diseases, stokes and obesity started to become more common in poorer areas of society and because of this societies reversed their previous social distributions.

There is a very different view of the determinants of health as examining the social perspective rather than the individuals causes different views however it is not actually due to the individuals determinants to health as the clinical studies do not add up to being the social determinants. The material conditions which is defined by income and are key for the social determinants of health. In the relation of income to health it is not only the income of individuals that is taken into account it is also the income of community. When a country is low in income a small increase can make a very big difference; an example of this could be African countries and due to high levels of child deaths and a life expectancy of 45 years means that they have a GDP of $1000 per capita. The main contributor in poverty ridden countries are the poor conditions such as shelter, sanitation and malnutrition however when a country becomes more rich it is likely able to provide the basic materials needed to have good health. A larger national income more unlikely to be able to provide a better health scheme for the population. If you compare countries to each other there is no important incline within the relation between income and health. There is a relationship between income and health which measures the life expectancy which is seen below. More developed societies are shown as a division in a historical period however it is possible to think about the present day in the more underdeveloped countries as similar in a few ways to develop countries at the beginning of the century. The small increase in income brings more significant life-expectancy gains.
Life expectancy and income for selected countries & periods.

Wilkinson argues that societies which have a high percentage of poor health is a society which allows or encourages discrimination when having different income. Society that has gaps between incomes in social groups have consequences which causes psychosocial effects. With the society having wide gaps between the rich and poor there is a low level in social cohesion. The process in which is associated with the lack of cohesion effects the health of all people, rich and poor. The Poor become more demoted and therefore is less likely to fit in with the norms of society which tends to result in crime and violence; the societies which encourage high income inequality show that there are high percentage of the population are excluded from fully participating, which does not value all people highly. While contrasting these societies it shows that in more free societies, even with lower incomes, they have better health than the richer countries.
These outcomes are shown in the diagram below.
There is a relationship between heath and income; the relative differences in income are seen as more important than the average living standards. Health is related to the differences in living standards within the more developed societies however there are many differences between them. The best levels of health are not in the richest countries but the more equal countries.
The Social Distribution of Disease. There are many factors that appear to be important explanations to the health differences within individuals. Even through practise someone cannot fully explain the differences of health from one society to another or from one social group or another; an example of this could be the percentage of people with coronary heart disease which exists between social classes in Britain, this was shown to be persistent after controlling an individual’s risk of heart disease by consuming and maintaining low fat and cholesterol levels.

We realise that there is an existence of social supply that shows exposure of the risk factors of disease patterns. Geoffrey Rose uses the understanding so he could develop an argument of assessing and controlling the interactive and behavioural causes for the individual’s health at a social level. Geoffrey showed that rather than finding individuals that have particular diseases (With a related connective health behaviour/risk contact) as being in different categories than the average population, that we should see them as one end of a scale. An example would be an individual’s blood pressure. Someone with hypertension are separate from the normal blood pressures of society; rather than them having a specific disease/ defect which is not in a bulk of the population and they come with the range of unevenness described by a bell curve of normal distribution. After examining the risks of hypertension in a number of different societies and countries rose concluded the average blood pressure and cholesterol levels are in particular societies. Many people in societies are at high risk. This can develop in any population due to poor lifestyles.
The conclusion shows the concerns of social distribution and that the causes of disease cuts across the idea of disease. It stresses that modern diseases and the exposure is due to the lifestyles and the norms of society.
There is a persistence of Social Inequalities in Health. Rule-makers in Britain before the war, accepted that there was a norm of large differences in death and illness levels between the rich and the poor. These differences were seen just as an unlucky consequences of the economy.
Although the general standard of health improved in the years after war, social classes death rates failed to narrow. The view in the mid-1960s was that the cause of the on-going differences in health outcome was more behavioural, and that more funds through the social policy should not be the answer. The position was ignored and the research that was available at the time challenged the idea of the development of the welfare state services which succeeded in removing barriers to accessing health and education services. The low income continued to be a main issue in the social.
The State health’s rules from the mid-1970s officially combined the strategy of health and education, with the aim of convincing society that it was their own behaviours towards health which needed changing. This strategy was almost immediately tested. The first `Whitehall Study' found that the differences in health for example behaviours such as smoking, blood pressure, exercise, and fat intake, were found to be the explanation for only a minority of the difference in mortality.
The Black Report was written in 1980 and was the first new official report into health inequality in Britain. The association was examined between social class and health development within data, and they also demonstrated that the mortality and morbidity was not an accidental distribution throughout the population’s societies. The report identifies many types of explanations for the findings for example;
• Artefacts
• Social selection for example those with poor health are not able to be as mobile.
• Cultural/religious and environmental behaviours for example the focus on class dissimilarities in health beliefs and behaviours.
• And finally material circumstances for example the social differences in income, diet, housing and working environment as a result of inequalities in health.

Because of the publication of the ‘Black Report’ there have been an increased amount of epidemiological studies which shows that social class is connected with social differences within health outcomes. The issues which connect the social classes to health were saw as showing the physical differences between social groups. The factors included income differences and housing, education, dieting and stressful working conditions, and all together it has been termed as a Social capital, and has the handiness of supportive social networks.
There is a gap in incomes between the rich and poor which has continued to expand in Britain since the 80's. There are a few reasons for this trend which include the decrease in the value of state benefits, and a taxation system which favours the more well-off people in society, for example the increase of unbalanced numbers of secondary taxes such as VAT and Fuel. Britain has been stated to have some of the lowest wage levels in the E.U, which only recently the government has begun to look into the lack of childcare systems such as cheaper childminders or nurseries which is why a high percentage of women prevent taking-up any kind of paid employment.