4.6 Article

Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil) participant's profile regarding self-rated health: a multiple correspondence analysis

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-11760-2

关键词

Self-rated health; Job strain; Multivariate analysis; Health inequality

资金

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior -CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that self-rated health is associated with lower socioeconomic conditions, being women, black self-declared race/ethnicity, being non-married/non-united, low decision authority, low skill discretion, and obesity. These factors should be targeted in interventions to reduce health inequalities in Brazil.
Background Self-rated health (SRH) - one of the most common health indicators used to verify health conditions - can be influenced by several types of socioeconomic conditions, thereby reflecting health inequalities. This study aimed to evaluate the participant profiles regarding the association between self-rated health and social and occupational characteristics of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). Methods Cross-sectional design, including 11,305 individuals. Self-rated health was categorized as good, fair, and poor. The relationship between socio-demographic, psychosocial work environment, health-related variables, and self-rated health was analyzed by multiple correspondence analysis (stratified by age: up to 49 years old and 50 years old or more). Results For both age strata, group composition was influenced by socioeconomic conditions. Poor SRH was related to lower socioeconomic conditions, being women, black self-declared race/ethnicity, being non-married/non-united, low decision authority, low skill discretion, and obesity. Conclusion To promote health, interventions should focus on reducing existing socioeconomic, race, and gender inequalities in Brazil.

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