Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on May 9, 2006
International Journal of Epidemiology 2006 35(3):604-606; doi:10.1093/ije/dyl099
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
35/3/604    most recent
dyl099v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Harper, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Harper, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2006; all rights reserved.

Commentary

Commentary: What explains widening geographic differences in life expectancy in New Zealand?

Sam Harper

Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Quebec, Canada. E-mail: sam.harper@mcgill.ca

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The ongoing collection, analysis, and dissemination of routine health statistics is essential for monitoring the health of populations.1 While the main function of such routine data analysis is to provide surveillance for particular health conditions, it may also serve to generate and support hypotheses about the causes of changes in population health.

In this issue, Pearce and Dorling2 analyse routine data to show that differences in life expectancy between New Zealand's 21 health districts have widened from 1980 to 2000. More specifically, they show that life expectancy increased for all areas, but the areas that were least deprived in 2001 saw larger life expectancy gains since 1980 than did the most-deprived areas. Similar results have also been seen for the UK3 and Canada,4 but as the authors note, there has been less attention paid to investigating geographic inequalities in health than to socioeconomic or race–ethnic inequalities in health. So what . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
J. PEARCE and D. DORLING
The place of population change in explaining geographical inequalities in health in New Zealand
Int. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2006; 35(4): 1099 - 1100.
[Full Text] [PDF]