3.8 Article

Education, income, occupational status and health risk behaviour

期刊

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH-HEIDELBERG
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 401-405

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10389-007-0120-6

关键词

Socio-economic status; Smoking; Obesity; Physical activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Socio-economic status is associated with a variety of health-related behaviours. In our study, we determined the independent effects of income, educational attainment and occupational status on overweight, smoking and physical activity in the German population. Subjects and methods The German National Health Interview and Examination Survey is a representative sample of the German adult population and includes 7,124 men and women. Prevalences of obesity, smoking and physical inactivity stratified for education, income and occupational status were calculated. Multiple logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for education, income, occupational status and health-related behaviour, adjusted for age and gender. Results Health risk behaviours were more prevalent in subjects with lower education, income or occupational status. After mutual adjustment, education, income and occupation were independently associated with physical inactivity. Low education was strongly associated with both obesity (OR: 2.58, 95% CI: 1.99-3.34) and smoking (OR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.71-2.54). Low income was associated with smoking (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.07-1.83), but not with obesity, and low occupational status was associated with obesity (OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.05-1.92), but not with smoking. High income or occupation could not compensate for the impact of low education on obesity and smoking. Conclusion Low socio-economic status is associated with health risk behaviours. Concerning obesity and smoking, education was more important than income or occupational status. Public health programmes to reduce these risk factors should focus on early-life health education.

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

3.8
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