4.6 Article

Health-related quality of life and mental health in the medium-term aftermath of the Prestige oil spill in Galiza (Spain):: a cross-sectional study

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-7-245

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: In 2002 the oil-tanker Prestige sank off the Galician coast. This study analyzes the effect of this accident on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and mental health in the affected population. Methods: Using random sampling stratified by age and sex, 2700 residents were selected from 7 coastal and 7 inland Galician towns. Two exposure criteria were considered: a) residential exposure, i.e., coast versus interior; and b) individual exposure-unaffected, slightly affected, or seriously affected-according to degree of personal affectation. SF-36, GHQ-28, HADS and GADS questionnaires were used to assess HRQoL and mental health. Association of exposure with suboptimal scores was summarized using adjusted odds ratios (OR) obtained from logistic regression. Results: For residential exposure, the SF-36 showed coastal residents as having a lower likelihood of registering suboptimal HRQoL values in physical functioning (OR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.54 - 0.89) and bodily pain (OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.62 - 0.91), and a higher frequency of suboptimal scores in mental health (OR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.02 - 1.58). None of the dimensions of the other questionnaires displayed statistically significant differences. For individual exposure, no substantial differences were observed, though the SF-36 physical functioning dimension rose (showed better scores) with level of exposure (91.51 unaffected, 93.86 slightly affected, 95.28 seriously affected, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Almost one and a half years after the accident, worse HRQoL and mental health levels were not in evidence among subjects exposed to the oil-spill. Nevertheless, some of the scales suggest the possibility of slight impact on the mental health of residents in the affected areas.

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