4.6 Article

Health Information Seeking Partially Mediated the Association between Socioeconomic Status and Self-Rated Health among Hong Kong Chinese

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082720

关键词

-

资金

  1. Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Poor self-rated health (SRH) is socially patterned with health communication inequalities, arguably, serving as one mechanisms. This study investigated the effects of health information seeking on SRH, and its mediation effects on disparities in SRH. Methods: We conducted probability-based telephone surveys administered over telephone in 2009, 2010/11 and 2012 to monitor health information use among 4553 Chinese adults in Hong Kong. Frequency of information seeking from television, radio, newspapers/magazines and Internet was dichotomised as < 1 time/month and >= 1 time/month. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for poor SRH were calculated for health information seeking from different sources and socioeconomic status (education and income). Mediation effects of health information seeking on the association between SES and poor SRH was estimated. Results: Poor SRH was associated with lower socioeconomic status (P for trend < 0.001), and less than monthly health information seeking from newspapers/magazines (aOR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.07-1.42) and Internet (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.98-1.31). Increasing combined frequency of health information seeking from newspapers/magazines and Internet was linearly associated with better SRH (P for trend < 0.01). Health information seeking from these two sources contributed 9.2% and 7.9% of the total mediation effects of education and household income on poor SRH, respectively. Conclusions: Poor SRH was associated with lower socioeconomic status, and infrequent health information seeking from newspapers/magazines and Internet among Hong Kong Chinese. Disparities in SRH may be partially mediated by health information seeking from newspapers/magazines and Internet.

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

4.6
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