4.6 Article

Health disparities based on neighbourhood and social conditions: Open Comparisons-an indicator-based comparative study in Sweden

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 174, 期 -, 页码 97-101

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.06.003

关键词

Health equity; Public health policy; Evaluation; Monitoring

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The overarching goal of the Swedish public health policy is to create the right societal conditions for good and equitable health throughout the population and to reduce avoidable health inequalities within a generation. The objective of this article is to highlight the main findings of the Open Comparisons in Public Health (OCPH) 2019 study. Study design: The OCPH is a longitudinal indicator-based comparative study, encompassing 39 public health indicators with results from Sweden's 21 regions and 290 municipalities. Methods: Descriptive statistics and 95% confidence intervals were used to compare results between municipalities, regions and time points. Correlation analysis was used to study the strength of the relationship between the results of municipalities and their socio-economic conditions. Results: Across the population, levels of health are good and have, in some areas, improved over recent decades. However, some significant health disparities remain according to neighbourhood, sex, age and educational background. Health disparities related to the level of education are often larger than those between women and men, and there are larger differences within a region than between regions. Health disparities have, in some cases, increased, such as for life expectancy. Conclusion: If health equity is to be achieved, leaders at all levels must collaborate and advocate for political action and local efficient public health interventions to eliminate health disparities as a result of neighbourhood and social conditions. (C) 2019 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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