4.2 Article

Modifiable Risk Factors for Asthma Morbidity in Bronx Versus Other Inner-City Children

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASTHMA
卷 46, 期 10, 页码 995-1000

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/02770900903350481

关键词

inner-city asthma; risk factors; housing conditions; pediatric asthma morbidity

资金

  1. CDC [200-1995-00953-0049]
  2. NIH [P60 MD00514]
  3. NATIONAL CENTER ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES [P60MD000514] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Bronx children have higher asthma prevalence and asthma morbidity than other US children. Objective: To compare risk factors for asthma morbidity present in Bronx children with those of children from other US inner-city areas. Methods: Cross-sectional, multi-state study of 1772 children ages 5-11 yrs. old with persistent asthma. Parental responses to the Child Asthma Risk Assessment Tool for 265 Bronx children are compared with those of 1507 children from 7 other sites (1 Northeast, 2 South, 2 Midwest, 2 West). Results: Bronx children were significantly more likely to be sensitized to reported aeroallergens in their homes than were children from the other sites (86% vs. 58%; p < .001). More Bronx parents reported household cockroaches (65% v 20%: p < .001). mice (42% v 11% p < .001), and rats (7% v 3%; p < .001); using a gas stove to heat the home (20% v 9%; p < .001) and visible mold (48% v 25% p < .001). Bronx parents were more likely to report pessimistic beliefs about controlling asthma (63% v 26%; p < .001) and high parental stress (48% v 37%; p < .01). Conclusions: Compared with other inner-city children with asthma, Bronx children are more likely to be exposed to household aeroallergens to which they are sensitized and have poor housing conditions. Their parents are more likely to report low expectations for asthma control and high levels of psychological stress. Interventions that address these identified needs may help to reduce the disproportionate burden of asthma morbidity experienced by Bronx children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据