4.6 Article

The Influence of Family Income Trajectories From Birth to Adulthood on Adult Oral Health: Findings From the 1982 Pelotas Birth Cohort

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 101, 期 4, 页码 730-736

出版社

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.184044

关键词

-

资金

  1. Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [201291/2008-8, 476985/20045]
  2. Wellcome Trust
  3. International Development Research Center (Canada)
  4. World Health Organization
  5. Overseas Development Administration (United Kingdom)
  6. United Nations Development Fund for Women
  7. National Program for Centers of Excellence (Brazil)
  8. National Research Council (Brazil)
  9. Ministry of Health (Brazil)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. We assessed whether 3 models of life course socioeconomic status (critical period, accumulation of risk, and social mobility) predicted unsound teeth in adulthood among a Brazilian cohort. Methods. Life course data were collected on the 5914 live-born infants in the 1982 Pelotas Birth Cohort study. Participants' oral health was assessed at 15 (n = 888) and 24 (n = 720) years of age. We assessed family income trajectories and number of episodes of poverty in the life course through Poisson regressions, yielding unadjusted and adjusted prevalence ratios for number of unsound teeth at age 24 years. Results. The adjusted prevalence ratio for participants born into poverty was 30% higher than for those who were not. Participants who were always poor had the highest prevalence of unsound teeth; those who were downwardly or upwardly mobile also had more unsound teeth than did other participants, after adjustment for confounders. More episodes of poverty were associated with greater prevalence of unsound teeth in adulthood. Conclusions. Poverty at birth and during the life course was correlated with the number of unsound teeth at 24 years of age. (Am J Public Health. 2011;101: 730-736. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.184044)

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