Glasgow Centre for Population Health, House 6, 94 Elmbank Street, Glasgow G2 4NE, Scotland.
NHS Health Scotland, Meridian Court, 5 Cadogan Street, Glasgow G2 6QE, Scotland.
Public Health. 2015 Jun;129(6):629-38. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.02.024. Epub 2015 Mar 29.
A high level of 'excess' mortality (i.e. that seemingly not explained by deprivation) has been shown for Scotland compared to England & Wales and, in particular, for its largest city, Glasgow, compared to the similarly deprived postindustrial English cities of Liverpool and Manchester. The excess has been observed across all social classes, but, for premature mortality, has been shown to be highest in comparison of those of lowest socio-economic status (SES). Many theories have been proposed to explain this phenomenon. One such suggestion relates to potential differences in social capital between the cities, given the previously evidenced links between social capital and mortality. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether any aspects of social capital differed between the cities and whether, therefore, this might be a plausible explanation for some of the excess mortality observed in Glasgow.
Cross-sectional study.
A representative survey of Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester was undertaken in 2011. Social capital was measured using an expanded version of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) core 'Social Capital Harmonised Question Set'. Differences between the cities in five sets of social capital topics (views about the local area, civic participation, social networks and support, social participation, and reciprocity and trust) were explored by means of a series of multivariate regression models, while controlling for differences in the characteristics (age, gender, SES, ethnicity etc.) of the samples.
Some, but not all, aspects of social capital were lower among the Glasgow sample compared to those in Liverpool and Manchester. A number of these differences were greatest among those of higher, rather than lower, SES. Levels of social participation, trust and (some measures of) reciprocity were lower in Glasgow, particularly in comparison with Liverpool. However, assessment of any potential impact of these differences is limited by the cross-sectional nature of the data.
The analyses suggest it is at least possible that differences in some aspects of social capital could play some part in explaining Glasgow's excess mortality, especially among particular sections of its population (e.g. those of higher SES). However, in the absence of more detailed longitudinal data, this remains speculative.
与英格兰和威尔士相比，苏格兰的“超额”死亡率（即似乎无法用贫困来解释的死亡率）水平较高，尤其是其最大城市格拉斯哥与同样贫困的后工业化英格兰城市利物浦和曼彻斯特相比。这种超额死亡率在所有社会阶层中都存在，但就早逝而言，与社会经济地位最低的人相比，这种死亡率最高。已经提出了许多理论来解释这一现象。其中一种观点涉及到城市之间社会资本的潜在差异，因为之前的证据表明社会资本与死亡率之间存在联系。本研究的目的是确定城市之间是否存在社会资本的任何方面的差异，以及这是否可以解释格拉斯哥观察到的部分超额死亡率。
横断面研究。
2011 年对格拉斯哥、利物浦和曼彻斯特进行了一项代表性调查。使用扩展版的国家统计局（ONS）核心“社会资本协调问题集”来衡量社会资本。通过一系列多变量回归模型，在控制样本特征（年龄、性别、社会经济地位、种族等）差异的情况下，探讨了五个社会资本主题（对当地的看法、公民参与、社会网络和支持、社会参与以及互惠和信任）在城市之间的差异。
与利物浦和曼彻斯特相比，格拉斯哥样本中的一些（但不是全部）社会资本方面较低。这些差异中的许多在较高而非较低的社会经济地位人群中最大。社会参与、信任和（一些互惠措施）在格拉斯哥较低，特别是与利物浦相比。然而，由于数据的横断面性质，评估这些差异的潜在影响受到限制。
分析表明，至少有可能，社会资本的某些方面的差异可能在一定程度上解释了格拉斯哥的超额死亡率，尤其是在其特定人群（例如，较高社会经济地位的人群）中。然而，在缺乏更详细的纵向数据的情况下，这仍然是推测性的。
