4.3 Article

Low socioeconomic status is associated with chronic musculoskeletal complaints among 46,901 adults in Norway

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 33, 期 4, 页码 268-275

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14034940510005699

关键词

musculoskeletal pain; population-based; socioeconomic status

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: A study was undertaken to evaluate the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and chronic musculoskeletal complaints ( MSC), and to determine how this relationship is influenced by change in SES. Methods: Two consecutive public health surveys within the county of Nord-Trondelag, Norway, were conducted in 1984 - 86 (HUNT-1) and 1995 - 97 (HUNT-2). Among 46,901 adults who participated in both surveys, 24,127 persons (51%) in HUNT-2 who reported MSC continuously for at least 3 months during the past year were defined as having chronic MSC. Prevalence of chronic MSC was estimated at nine anatomical sites using multiple logistic regression with odds ratio ( OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) as measures of association with SES. Results: When defining SES by educational level, type of occupation, or income, low status was associated with increased prevalence of chronic MSC (age-adjusted analyses). The negative influence of low education or low occupation level was not eliminated by increasing the level of education or occupation from HUNT-1 to HUNT-2, in contrast with what was found for individuals with higher income level in HUNT-2 than in HUNT-1. The relationship with SES was more evident among individuals with musculoskeletal symptoms >= 15 days during the past month than among those with less than 15 days, evident at all nine different anatomical sites. The strongest relationship was found between low SES and prevalence of widespread chronic MSC. Conclusions: Individuals with low SES had higher prevalence of chronic MSC than those with high SES. Future studies should try to clarify whether chronic MSC are a cause or consequence of low SES.

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

4.3
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