Earnest Arul, Ong Marcus E H, Shahidah Nur, Chan Angelique, Wah Win, Thumboo Julian
Centre for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, 169857, Singapore; Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Victoria 2004, Australia.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore; Health Services & Systems Research, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, 169857, Singapore.
Prev Med Rep. 2015 Apr 28;2:326-32. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2015.04.018. eCollection 2015.
Environmental contexts have been shown to predict health behaviours and outcomes either directly or via interaction with individual risk factors. In this paper, we created indexes of socioeconomic disadvantage (SEDI) and socioeconomic advantage (SAI) in Singapore to test the applicability of these concepts in an Asian context. These indices can be used for health service resource allocation, research and advocacy.
We used principal component analysis (PCA) to create SEDI and SAI using a structured and iterative process to identify and include influential variables in the final index. Data at the master plan geographical level was obtained from the most recent Singapore census 2010.
The 3 areas with highest SEDI scores were Outram (120.1), followed by Rochor (111.0) and Downtown Core (110.4). The areas with highest SAI scores were Tanglin, River Valley and Newton. The SAI had 89.6% of variation explained by the final model, as compared to 67.1% for SEDI, and we recommend using both indices in any analysis.
These indices may prove useful for policy-makers to identify spatially varying risk factors, and in turn help identify geographically targeted intervention programs, which can be more cost effective to conduct.
环境因素已被证明可直接或通过与个体风险因素的相互作用来预测健康行为和结果。在本文中,我们创建了新加坡社会经济劣势(SEDI)和社会经济优势(SAI)指数,以测试这些概念在亚洲背景下的适用性。这些指数可用于卫生服务资源分配、研究和宣传。
我们使用主成分分析(PCA)来创建SEDI和SAI,采用结构化和迭代的过程来识别并将有影响力的变量纳入最终指数。总体规划地理层面的数据来自2010年新加坡最新人口普查。
SEDI得分最高的3个地区是欧南园(120.1),其次是如切(111.0)和市中心核心区(110.4)。SAI得分最高的地区是东陵、河谷和牛顿。最终模型对SAI变异的解释率为89.6%,而SEDI为67.1%,我们建议在任何分析中同时使用这两个指数。
这些指数可能有助于政策制定者识别空间上不同的风险因素,进而帮助确定针对特定地理区域的干预项目,实施这些项目可能更具成本效益。