• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估弱势群体的处境最糟糕的地方:一项关于福利制度对不同社会经济群体残疾状况影响的全球多层次分析。

Assessing where vulnerable groups fare worst: a global multilevel analysis on the impact of welfare regimes on disability across different socioeconomic groups.

机构信息

Department of Public Health, Academic Medical Center (AMC), University of Amsterdam, PO Box 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Sep;66(9):775-81. doi: 10.1136/jech-2011-200320. Epub 2011 Nov 1.

DOI:10.1136/jech-2011-200320
PMID:22045848
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Investigations on health differences within welfare states between low- and high-socioeconomic groups are mainly conducted in Europe. With the aim of gaining global insight on the extent welfare regimes influence personal disability for the most vulnerable, we explore how these health differences vary between low- and high-socioeconomic groups.

METHODS

The World Health Survey data were analysed on 199595 adults from 46 countries using the welfare regime classification developed by Wood and Gough. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate welfare regime differences in self-reported disability according to individual educational attainment and employment status.

RESULTS

As compared with the low educated in the European-conservative regime, the odds of having a higher prevalence of disability was found among low-educated people residing in the informal-security regime of South Asia, with OR being 3.16 (95% CI 2.23 to 4.47). While state-organised regimes seemed to offer more protection against disability to the low educated, the productivist regime of East Asia trailed closely behind, with OR being 1.10 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.60) for the low educated. Similar findings were also observed in the unemployed.

CONCLUSIONS

State-organised regimes of Europe and the productivist regime of East Asia seem to contain protecting features against disability for all citizens and especially for the most vulnerable. Apart from the productivist regime of East Asia, the low educated and the unemployed seem to carry the greatest health burden within more insecure regimes, highlighting a deficiency in social provisions within these regimes aimed at protecting the most vulnerable.

摘要

背景

在福利国家中,对低社会经济群体和高社会经济群体之间健康差异的研究主要在欧洲进行。为了全面了解福利制度对最弱势群体个人残疾的影响程度,我们探讨了这些健康差异在低社会经济群体和高社会经济群体之间的变化情况。

方法

使用 Wood 和 Gough 开发的福利制度分类,对来自 46 个国家的 199595 名成年人的世界卫生调查数据进行了分析。采用多水平逻辑回归,根据个人受教育程度和就业状况,评估自我报告残疾方面的福利制度差异。

结果

与欧洲保守福利制度中低教育程度的人相比,在南亚非正规保障福利制度中,低教育程度人群残疾的流行率更高,比值比(OR)为 3.16(95%CI 2.23 至 4.47)。虽然有组织的国家福利制度似乎为低教育程度者提供了更多的残疾保护,但东亚的生产主义福利制度紧随其后,低教育程度者的 OR 为 1.10(95%CI 0.76 至 1.60)。失业者也观察到类似的发现。

结论

欧洲的有组织国家福利制度和东亚的生产主义福利制度似乎对所有公民,特别是最弱势群体,都具有保护残疾的特征。除了东亚的生产主义福利制度外,低教育程度者和失业者在保障程度较低的制度中似乎承担着最大的健康负担,这突显了这些制度中旨在保护最弱势群体的社会福利制度存在缺陷。

相似文献

1
Assessing where vulnerable groups fare worst: a global multilevel analysis on the impact of welfare regimes on disability across different socioeconomic groups.评估弱势群体的处境最糟糕的地方:一项关于福利制度对不同社会经济群体残疾状况影响的全球多层次分析。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2012 Sep;66(9):775-81. doi: 10.1136/jech-2011-200320. Epub 2011 Nov 1.
2
Educational differentials in disability vary across and within welfare regimes: a comparison of 26 European countries in 2009.不同福利制度之间及内部的残疾教育差异各不相同:2009年26个欧洲国家的比较。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 Apr;70(4):331-8. doi: 10.1136/jech-2015-205978. Epub 2015 Nov 6.
3
Do welfare regimes influence the association between disability and self-perceived health? A multilevel analysis of 57 countries.福利制度会影响残疾与自我感知健康之间的关系吗?对 57 个国家的多层次分析。
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Sep;117:10-7. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.07.023. Epub 2014 Jul 9.
4
Welfare state regimes, health and health inequalities in adolescence: a multilevel study in 32 countries.福利国家模式、青少年健康和健康不平等:32 个国家的多层次研究。
Sociol Health Illn. 2012 Jul;34(6):858-79. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2011.01433.x. Epub 2012 Apr 12.
5
Socioeconomic inequalities in oral health in different European welfare state regimes.不同欧洲福利国家体制下的口腔健康的社会经济不平等。
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013 Sep;67(9):728-35. doi: 10.1136/jech-2013-202714. Epub 2013 Jun 27.
6
Welfare state regimes, unemployment and health: a comparative study of the relationship between unemployment and self-reported health in 23 European countries.福利国家体制、失业与健康:23个欧洲国家失业与自我报告健康状况关系的比较研究
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009 Feb;63(2):92-8. doi: 10.1136/jech.2008.077354. Epub 2008 Oct 17.
7
Welfare state regimes and differences in self-perceived health in Europe: a multilevel analysis.欧洲的福利国家体制与自我感知健康状况的差异:一项多层次分析
Soc Sci Med. 2008 Jun;66(11):2281-95. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.01.022. Epub 2008 Mar 7.
8
Gender, health inequalities and welfare state regimes: a cross-national study of 13 European countries.性别、健康不平等与福利国家体制:对13个欧洲国家的跨国研究
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009 Jan;63(1):38-44. doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.070292. Epub 2008 Sep 3.
9
Inequalities in oral impacts and welfare regimes: analysis of 21 European countries.口腔健康影响与福利制度的不平等:对21个欧洲国家的分析
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;42(6):517-25. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12119. Epub 2014 Jul 7.
10
Welfare state regimes and income-related health inequalities: a comparison of 23 European countries.福利国家体制与收入相关的健康不平等:23个欧洲国家的比较
Eur J Public Health. 2008 Dec;18(6):593-9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckn092. Epub 2008 Oct 16.

引用本文的文献

1
The modifying influence of country development on the effect of individual educational attainment on self-rated health.国家发展对个人教育程度对自评健康影响的调节作用。
Am J Public Health. 2013 Nov;103(11):e49-54. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301593. Epub 2013 Sep 12.
2
Welfare state regimes, gender, and depression: a multilevel analysis of middle and high income countries.福利国家模式、性别与抑郁:中高收入国家的多层次分析
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013 Mar 28;10(4):1324-41. doi: 10.3390/ijerph10041324.