Low-Income Employees’ Choices Regarding Employment Benefits Aimed at Improving the Socioeconomic Determinants of Health

Dados Bibliográficos

ID11031048
AutoresMarion Danis (0000-0002-4749-4568, At the time of the study, Marion Danis, Francis Lovett, Lindsay Sabik, and Katherin Adikes were with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md; Glen Cheng was with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry, Newark; and Tom Aomo was an information technology consultant in Hartford, Conn.), Francis Lovett (At the time of the study, Marion Danis, Francis Lovett, Lindsay Sabik, and Katherin Adikes were with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md; Glen Cheng was with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry, Newark; and Tom Aomo was an information technology consultant in Hartford, Conn.), Lindsay M Sabik (0000-0002-0613-4929, National Institutes of Health), Lindsay Sabik (At the time of the study, Marion Danis, Francis Lovett, Lindsay Sabik, and Katherin Adikes were with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md; Glen Cheng was with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry, Newark; and Tom Aomo was an information technology consultant in Hartford, Conn.), Katherin Adikes (At the time of the study, Marion Danis, Francis Lovett, Lindsay Sabik, and Katherin Adikes were with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md; Glen Cheng was with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry, Newark; and Tom Aomo was an information technology consultant in Hartford, Conn.), Katherin A Adikes (National Institutes of Health), Glen Cheng (0000-0002-8011-9639, At the time of the study, Marion Danis, Francis Lovett, Lindsay Sabik, and Katherin Adikes were with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md; Glen Cheng was with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry, Newark; and Tom Aomo was an information technology consultant in Hartford, Conn.), Tom Aomo (At the time of the study, Marion Danis, Francis Lovett, Lindsay Sabik, and Katherin Adikes were with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md; Glen Cheng was with the Department of Clinical Bioethics, New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry, Newark; and Tom Aomo was an information technology consultant in Hartford, Conn.)
Ano2007
Volume97
Fascículo9
Páginas1650-1657
Data de publicação2007-09-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoAmerican Journal of Public Health (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0090-0036 • E-ISSN: 1541-0048
EditoraAmerican Public Health Association (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.2105/ajph.2006.091033
PMID17666702
PMCIDPMC1963279
OpenAlexW1984888517
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas5
Referências citadas6

Objectives. Socioeconomic factors are associated with reduced health status in low-income populations. We sought to identify affordable employment benefit packages that might ameliorate these socioeconomic factors and would be consonant with employees’ priorities. Methods. Working in groups (n = 53), low-income employees (n = 408; 62% women, 65% Black) from the Washington, DC, and Baltimore, Md, metropolitan area, participated in a computerized exercise in which they expressed their preference for employment benefit packages intended to address socioeconomic determinants of health. The hypothetical costs of these benefits reflected those of the average US benefit package available to low-income employees. Questionnaires ascertained sociodemographic information and attitudes. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were used to examine benefit choices. Results. Groups chose offered benefits in the following descending rank order: health care, retirement, vacation, disability pay, training, job flexibility, family time, dependent care, monetary advice, anxiety assistance, wellness, housing assistance, and nutrition programs. Participants varied in their personal choices, but 78% expressed willingness to abide by their groups’ choices. Conclusions. It is possible to design employment benefits that ameliorate socioeconomic determinants of health and are acceptable to low-income employees. These benefit packages can be provided at the cost of benefit packages currently available to some low-income employees

Business · Descriptive statistics · Economic growth · Economics · Environmental health · Flexibility (engineering) · Geography · Health care · Household income · Multinomial logistic regression · Population · Socioeconomic status · Employment and Welfare Studies · Health disparities and outcomes · Medicine · Workplace Health and Well-being · Gerontology