Research & Evaluation Group, Public Health Management Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Research & Evaluation Group, Public Health Management Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA; PhD Candidate, Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Public Health. 2023 Apr;217:155-163. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2023.01.033. Epub 2023 Mar 7.
This study aimed to (1) encourage allocation of governmental and grant funds to the administration of local area health surveys and (2) illustrate the predictive impact of socio-economic resources on adult health status at the local area level to provide an example of how health surveys can identify residents with the greatest health needs.
Randomly sampled and weight-adjusted regional household health survey (7501 respondents) analyzed with categorical bivariate and multivariate statistics, combined with Census data. Survey sample consists of the lowest, highest, and near highest ranked counties in the County Health Rankings and Roadmaps for Pennsylvania.
Socio-economic status (SES) is measured regionally with Census data consisting of seven indicators and individually with Health Survey data consisting of five indicators based on poverty level, overall household income, and education. Both of these composite measures are examined jointly for their predictive effects on a validated health status measure using binary logistic regression.
Once county-level measures of SES and health status are broken down into smaller areas, better identification of pockets of health need is possible. This was most strongly revealed in an urban county, Philadelphia, which is ranked lowest of 67 counties on health measures in the state of Pennsylvania, yet when broken down into 'neighborhood clusters' contained both the highest- and lowest-ranked local area in a five-county region. Overall, regardless of the SES level of the County subdivision one lives in, a low-SES adult has close to six times greater odds of reporting 'fair or poor health status' than does a high-SES adult.
Local health survey analysis can lead to a more precise identification of health needs than surveys attempting to cover broad areas. Low-SES communities within counties, and low-SES individuals, regardless of the community they live in, are substantially more likely to experience fair to poor health. This adds urgency to the need to implement and investigate socio-economic interventions, which can hopefully improve health and save healthcare costs. Novel local area research can identify the impact of intervening variables such as race in addition to SES to add more specificity in identifying populations with the greatest health needs.
本研究旨在:(1)鼓励政府和赠款基金用于管理地区卫生调查;(2)说明社会经济资源对当地成人健康状况的预测影响,为健康调查如何确定健康需求最大的居民提供范例。
对随机抽样和权重调整的区域家庭健康调查(7501 名受访者)进行分析,采用分类双变量和多变量统计,结合人口普查数据。调查样本由宾夕法尼亚州县健康排名和路线图中排名最低、最高和接近最高的县组成。
社会经济地位(SES)通过包含七个指标的人口普查数据和包含五个指标的健康调查数据在区域层面进行衡量,这五个指标基于贫困水平、家庭总收入和教育水平。这两种综合措施都使用二元逻辑回归联合检验其对经过验证的健康状况衡量指标的预测效果。
一旦将 SES 和健康状况的县一级衡量标准细分为更小的区域,就可以更好地确定健康需求的聚集点。这在一个城市县费城得到了最有力的体现,费城在宾夕法尼亚州的健康指标中排名最低,而在 67 个县中,然而,当它被细分为“邻里集群”时,在一个五县地区内包含了排名最高和最低的地方。总体而言,无论一个人居住的县细分的 SES 水平如何,低 SES 成年人报告“健康状况一般或较差”的几率几乎是高 SES 成年人的六倍。
与试图涵盖广泛区域的调查相比,当地健康调查分析可以更准确地确定健康需求。县内低 SES 社区以及无论他们居住在哪个社区的低 SES 个人,都更有可能经历健康状况一般或较差。这增加了实施和调查社会经济干预措施的紧迫性,这有望改善健康状况并节省医疗保健成本。新的当地研究可以确定干预变量(如种族)的影响,以增加确定健康需求最大的人群的特异性。