4.6 Article

Socio-economic status and overall and cause-specific mortality in Sweden

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-340

关键词

-

资金

  1. Baden-Wurttemberg Network of Aging Research (NAR)
  2. Deutsche Krebshilfe
  3. Swedish Cancer Society
  4. The Swedish Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Previous studies have reported discrepancies in cause-specific mortality among groups of individuals with different socio-economic status. However, most of the studies were limited by the specificity of the investigated populations and the broad definitions of the causes of death. The aim of the present population-based study was to explore the dependence of disease specific mortalities on the socio-economic status in Sweden, a country with universal health care. Another aim was to investigate possible gender differences. Methods: Using the 2006 update of the Swedish Family-Cancer Database, we identified over 2 million individuals with socio-economic data recorded in the 1960 national census. The association between mortality and socio-economic status was investigated by Cox's proportional hazards models taking into account the age, time period and residential area in both men and women, and additionally parity and age at first birth in women. Results: We observed significant associations between socio-economic status and mortality due to cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, to cancer and to endocrine, nutritional and metabolic diseases. The influence of socio-economic status on female breast cancer was markedly specific: women with a higher socio-economic status showed increased mortality due to breast cancer. Conclusion: Even in Sweden, a country where health care is universally provided, higher socioeconomic status is associated with decreased overall and cause-specific mortalities. Comparison of mortality among female and male socio-economic groups may provide valuable insights into the underlying causes of socio-economic inequalities in length of life.

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