Abstract
Considerable attention has been paid to inequalities in health. More recently, focus has also turned to inequalities in ‘recovery’; with research, for example, suggesting that lower grade of employment is strongly associated with slower recovery from both poor physical and poor mental health. However, this research has tended to operationalise recovery as ‘return to baseline’, and we know less about patterns and predictors when recovery is situated as a ‘process’. This paper seeks to address this gap. Drawing on data from the UK Household Survey panel, we operationalise recovery as both an ‘outcome’ and as a ‘process’ and compare patterns and predictors across the two models. Our analysis demonstrates that the determinants of recovery from poor health, measured by the SF-12, are robust, regardless of whether recovery is operationalised as an outcome or as a process. For example, being employed and having a higher degree were found to increase the odds of recovery both from poor physical and mental health functioning, when recovery was operationalised as an outcome. These variables were also important in distinguishing health functioning trajectories following a poor health episode. At one and the same time, our analysis does suggest that understandings of inequalities in recovery will depend in part on how we define it. When recovery is operationalised as a simple transition from poor health state to good, it loses sight of the fact that there may be inequalities (i) within a ‘poor health’ state, (ii) in how individuals are able to step into the path of recovery, and (iii) in whether health states are maintained over time. We therefore need to remain alert to the additional nuance in understanding which comes from situating recovery as a process; as well as possible methodological artefacts in population research which come from how recovery is operationalised.
•There is no consensus on what recovery is and how it should be operationalised.•Understanding of inequalities in recovery across health conditions remains scarce.•We operationalised recovery both as an outcome and as a process.•We found robust inequalities in recovery across the two approaches.•Considering recovery as a process revealed more nuanced patterns in inequalities.