4.6 Article

Associations of Environmental Factors With Elderly Health and Mortality in China

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 100, 期 2, 页码 298-305

出版社

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.154971

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [R01 AG023627-01, 1 P30AG028716]
  2. China Natural Science Foundation [70533010]
  3. United Nations Population Fund
  4. China Social Sciences Foundation
  5. Hong Kong Research Grants Council
  6. National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [5K01HD049593]
  7. Global Health Institute, Duke University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. We examined the effects of community socioeconomic conditions, air pollution, and the physical environment on elderly health and survival in China. Methods. We analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of 15973 elderly residents of 866 counties and cities with multilevel logistic regression models in which individuals were nested within each county or city. Results. After control for individual-level factors, communities' gross domestic product per capita, adult labor force participation rate, and illiteracy rate were significantly associated with physical, mental, and overall health and mortality among the elderly in China. We also found that air pollution increased the odds of disability in activities of daily living (ADLs), cognitive impairment, and health deficits; more rainfall was protective, reducing the odds of ADL disability and cognitive impairment; low seasonal temperatures increased the odds of ADL disability and mortality; high seasonal temperatures increased the odds of cognitive impairment and deficits; and living in hilly areas decreased the odds of ADL disability and health deficits. Conclusions. Efforts to reduce pollution and improve socioeconomic conditions could significantly improve elderly health and survival. (Am J Public Health. 2010;100:298-305. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.154971)

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