Tafran Khaled, Tumin Makmor, Osman Ahmad Farid
Department of Administrative Studies and Politics, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Department of Applied Statistics, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Iran J Public Health. 2020 Sep;49(9):1709-1717. doi: 10.18502/ijph.v49i9.4088.
We examined whether multidimensional poverty index (MPI) explained variations in life expectancy (LE) better than income poverty; and assessed the relative importance of MPI indicators in influencing LE.
Cross-sectional data from 62 developing countries were used to run several multivariate linear regressions. R was used to compare the powers of MPI with income-poverties (income poverty gaps [IPG] at 1.9 and 3.1 USD) in explaining LE.
Adjusting for controls, both MPI (β =-0.245, <0.001) and IPG at 3.1 USD (β=-0.135, =0.044) significantly correlates with LE, but not IPG at 1.9 USD (β=-0.147, =0.135). MPI explains 12.1% of the variation in LE compared to only 3.2% explained by IPG at 3.1 USD. The effect of MPI on LE is higher on female (β=-0.210, <0.001) than male (β=-0.177, <0.001). The relative influence of the deprivation indictors on LE ranks as follows (most to least): Asset ownership, drinking water, cooking fuel, flooring, child school attendance, years of schooling, nutrition, mortality, improved sanitation, and electricity.
Interventions to reduce poverty and improve LE should be guided by MPI, not income poverty indices. Such policies should be female-oriented and prioritized based on the relative influence of the various poverty deprivation indicators on LE.
我们研究了多维贫困指数(MPI)是否比收入贫困更能解释预期寿命(LE)的差异;并评估了MPI指标对预期寿命影响的相对重要性。
使用来自62个发展中国家的横断面数据进行多项多元线性回归。使用R来比较MPI与收入贫困(1.9美元和3.1美元的收入贫困差距[IPG])在解释预期寿命方面的能力。
在调整了控制因素后,MPI(β = -0.245,<0.001)和3.1美元的IPG(β = -0.135,= 0.044)与预期寿命显著相关,但1.9美元的IPG(β = -0.147,= 0.135)与预期寿命无显著相关性。MPI解释了预期寿命变化的12.1%,而3.1美元的IPG仅解释了3.2%。MPI对女性预期寿命的影响(β = -0.210,<0.001)高于男性(β = -0.177,<0.001)。贫困指标对预期寿命的相对影响排名如下(从高到低):资产所有权、饮用水、烹饪燃料、地板、儿童入学率、受教育年限、营养、死亡率、改善的卫生设施和电力。
减少贫困和提高预期寿命的干预措施应以MPI为指导,而不是收入贫困指数。此类政策应以女性为导向,并根据各种贫困剥夺指标对预期寿命的相对影响进行优先排序。