4.6 Article

Relative Deprivation, Poverty, and Subjective Health: JAGES Cross-Sectional Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0111169

关键词

-

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [KAKENHI 26285138, 23243070]
  2. Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [H25-Choju-ippan-003]
  3. MEXT
  4. Health Labour Sciences Research Grant, Comprehensive Research on Aging and Health [H22-Choju-shitei-008]
  5. JSPS KA-KENHI Grant [23243070, 22330172, 22119506, 22390400, 22592327, 22700694, 23590786, 23700819]
  6. Japan Foundation for Aging and Health
  7. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22000001, 22390400, 25285095, 25253052, 23590786, 26285138, 22592327, 26460831, 22330172, 22119506, 22700694, 23700819] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To evaluate the association between relative deprivation (lacking daily necessities) and subjective health in older Japanese adults, we performed a cross-sectional analysis using data from the Japan Gerontological Evaluation Study (JAGES). The data were obtained from functionally independent residents aged >= 65 years from 24 municipalities in Japan (n = 24,742). Thirteen items in three dimensions were used to evaluate relative deprivation of material conditions. Approximately 28% of older Japanese people indicated that they lacked some daily necessities (non-monetary poverty). A two-level Poisson regression analysis revealed that relative deprivation was associated with poor self-rated health (PR = 1.3-1.5) and depressive symptoms (PR = 1.5-1.8) in both men and women, and these relationships were stronger than those observed in people living in relative poverty (monetary poverty). The interaction effect between relative deprivation and relative poverty was not associated with poor health. As a dimension of the social determinants of health, poverty should be evaluated from a multidimensional approach, capturing not only monetary conditions but also material-based, non-monetary conditions.

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