Impact of Selective Evidence Presentation on Judgments of Health Inequality Trends: An Experimental Study

Sam B. Harper · Nicholas B. King · Meredith E Young

40 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Health disparities and outcomes Statistical Methods in Epidemiology Public Health and Social Inequalities

Abstract

Reducing health inequalities is a key objective for many governments and public health organizations. Whether inequalities are measured on the absolute (difference) or relative (ratio) scale can have a significant impact on judgments about whether health inequalities are increasing or decreasing, but both of these measures are not often presented in empirical studies. In this study we investigated the impact of selective presentation of health inequality measures on judgments of health inequality trends among 40 university undergraduates. We randomized participants to see either a difference or ratio measure of health inequality alongside raw mortality rates in 5 different scenarios. At baseline there were no differences between treatment groups in assessments of inequality trends, but selective exposure to the same raw data augmented with ratio versus difference inequality graphs altered participants' assessments of inequality change. When absolute inequality decreased and relative inequality increased, exposure to ratio measures increased the probability of concluding that inequality had increased from 32.5% to 70%, but exposure to difference measures did not (35% vs. 25%). Selective exposure to ratio versus difference inequality graphs thus increased the difference between groups in concluding that inequality had increased from 2.5% (95% CI -9.5% to 14.5%) to 45% (95% CI 29.4 to 60.6). A similar pattern was evident for other scenarios where absolute and relative inequality trends gave conflicting results. In cases where measures of absolute and relative inequality both increased or both decreased, we did not find any evidence that assignment to ratio vs. difference graphs had an impact on assessments of inequality change. Selective reporting of measures of health inequality has the potential to create biased judgments of progress in ameliorating health inequalities.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 40 citations exist upstream.

References

2007Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration 2008Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health 2007Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration 1997Measuring the magnitude of socio-economic inequalities in health: An overview of available measures illustrated with two examples from Europe 1997Socioeconomic inequalities in morbidity and mortality in western Europe 1997Socioeconomic inequalities in morbidity and mortality in western Europe 2006Methods in Social Epidemiology 2008How the Millennium Development Goals are Unfair to Africa

Cited by

2018Health inequalities in Germany and in international comparison: trends and developments over time 2019Trends in socioeconomic inequalities in self-rated health in Germany: a time-trend analysis of repeated cross-sectional health surveys between 2003 and 2012 2025Improving the Reporting on Health Equity in Observational Research (STROBE-Equity)2025Improving the reporting on health equity in observational research (STROBE-Equity): extension checklist and elaboration

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.