Suppr超能文献

可负担性、社会性和低标准住房与死亡率:1999-2019 年波尔图 EPIP 队列研究。

Affordable, Social, and Substandard Housing and Mortality: The EPIPorto Cohort Study, 1999-2019.

机构信息

The authors are with EPIUnit-Instituto de Saúde Pública and Departamento de Ciências da Saúde Pública e Forenses e Educação Médica, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.

出版信息

Am J Public Health. 2020 Jul;110(7):1060-1067. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305661. Epub 2020 May 21.

Abstract

To examine the association between residence in different housing typologies and all-cause and cause-specific mortality, and to compare with the 25 × 25 risk factors defined by the World Health Organization. We used data from EPIPorto cohort (Porto, Portugal; n = 2485). We georeferenced and matched participants to a housing type-conventional, affordable, social, or substandard housing (locally called ). We used Poisson regression models to estimate mortality rates and associations. Age- and sex-adjusted mortality rates (per 100 000 person-years) were 713 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 584, 863) for individuals residing in conventional housing, and 1019 (95% CI = 637, 1551), 1200 (95% CI = 916, 1551), and 1239 (95% CI = 839, 1772) for individuals residing in affordable housing, social housing, and , respectively. After further adjustment, the associations between mortality and residence in social housing (rate ratio [RR] = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.22, 2.06) and in (RR = 1.64; 95% CI = 1.12, 2.33) remained. The association between disadvantaged housing and mortality was stronger than that observed for well-established risk factors such as hypertension, sedentariness, heavy drinking, manual occupation, or obesity. Disadvantaged housing is a major risk factor for mortality that should be accounted for by health policies and surveillance systems.

摘要

为了研究居住在不同住房类型与全因和特定原因死亡率之间的关系,并将其与世界卫生组织定义的 25×25 个风险因素进行比较,我们使用了 EPIPorto 队列(葡萄牙波尔图;n=2485)的数据。我们对参与者进行了地理定位,并将他们与传统住房、经济适用房、社会住房或劣质住房(当地称为 )进行匹配。我们使用泊松回归模型来估计死亡率和相关性。经过年龄和性别调整后的死亡率(每 100000 人年)分别为居住在传统住房中的个体的 713(95%置信区间[CI] = 584,863),居住在经济适用房、社会住房和 中的个体分别为 1019(95% CI = 637,1551)、1200(95% CI = 916,1551)和 1239(95% CI = 839,1772)。进一步调整后,社会住房(RR=1.59;95% CI = 1.22,2.06)和 (RR=1.64;95% CI = 1.12,2.33)居住与死亡率之间的关联仍然存在。弱势住房与死亡率之间的关联强于高血压、久坐不动、大量饮酒、体力劳动或肥胖等既定风险因素。弱势住房是导致死亡率的一个主要风险因素,健康政策和监测系统应该考虑到这一点。

相似文献

3
The effects of housing and neighborhood conditions on child mortality.住房和邻里条件对儿童死亡率的影响。
J Health Econ. 2013 Jan;32(1):195-206. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2012.10.008. Epub 2012 Oct 30.

本文引用的文献

1
Housing as a Platform for Health and Equity: Evidence and Future Directions.住房作为健康和公平的平台:证据与未来方向。
Am J Public Health. 2019 Oct;109(10):1363-1366. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305210. Epub 2019 Aug 15.
4
Subsidized Housing and Adult Asthma in Boston, 2010-2015.2010-2015 年波士顿补贴性住房与成人哮喘
Am J Public Health. 2018 Aug;108(8):1059-1065. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304468. Epub 2018 Jun 21.
9
Housing Policies and Health Inequalities.住房政策与健康不平等
Int J Health Serv. 2017 Apr;47(2):207-232. doi: 10.1177/0020731416684292. Epub 2016 Dec 28.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验