中国社区社会经济地位和成人自评健康的关联研究

doi:10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.02.014

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的: 分析社区社会经济地位与城市和农村成年居民自评健康是否存在独立关联,为采用社区层面干预措施,改善社会经济发展落后社区居民健康状况提供政策依据。方法: 基于中国家庭追踪调查(China Family Panel Studies, CFPS)2010年基线数据,对社区人均教育年限、人均收入和人均财富进行主成分分析,提取第一主成分得分,标准化后作为社区社会经济指数(socioeconomic index, SEI)。再合并2012年CFPS成人追访数据,利用多水平Logistic回归模型在控制个体人口和社会经济因素后,分别分析社区SEI对城市居民和农村居民自评健康是否具有独立关联。结果: 纳入最终分析样本分布在577个社区中,共包含31 321名成人居民,其中城市居民8 423人,农村居民22 898人。社区SEI取值范围为-2.41~3.16,其均值为0,方差为1。随着社区SEI增加,不同维度的贫困发生率下降,社区社会经济地位升高。控制个体因素和社区社会经济因素的多水平Logistic模型显示,随着社区SEI增加,自评不健康概率下降,社区社会经济地位对成人自评健康存在情境效应。但是只有社区社会经济地位对农村居民自评不健康的情境效应存在统计学意义(OR=0.84,95%CI:0.76~0.94),对城市居民自评不健康的情境效应不具有统计学意义(OR=0.94,95%CI:0.83~1.06)。结论: 控制个体社会经济因素后,社区经济地位和农村居民自评不健康之间存在独立关联,提高社会经济发展落后农村社区居民健康状况,不仅仅需要采取基于个体的健康干预,同时需要考虑采取基于社区的健康干预。

关键词: 社会经济指数, 自评健康, 模型, 统计学, 中国

Abstract:

Objective: To examine whether community socioeconomic status is associated with self-rated health independent of individual socioeconomic status for urban and rural residents, and to provide policy implications for improving the health status of the socioeconomically underdeveloped communities in China. Methods: Based on the baseline data of China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) in 2010, principal component analysis was used to construct community socioeconomic index (SEI) based on average years of schooling, average income and average wealth at the community level. Community SEI was defined as the standardized first principal component score. In combination with the adult data from CFPS 2012 follow-up data, the multilevel Logistic regression model was used to analyze whether the community socioeconomic status had an independent contextual effect on the self-rated health of urban residents and rural residents after controlling individual-level socioeconomic status. Results: In the final analysis, 31 321 adult residents in 577 communities were included, of whom 8 423 were urban residents and 22 898 were rural residents. Community SEI ranged from -2.41 to 3.16, with a mean of 0 and a stan-dard deviation of 1. As the community SEI increased, the incidence of deprivations in different dimensions decreased, indicating the community socioeconomic status increased. The multilevel Logistic model controlling for both individual sociodemographic factors and community socioeconomic status showed that as the community SEI increased, the probability of poor self-rated health decreased, which indicated community SEI had a contextual effect on poor self-rated health. The contextual effect of community SEI on poor self-rated health was statistically significant for the rural residents (OR=0.84, 95%CI: 0.76-0.94) but not statistically significant for the urban adults (OR=0.94, 95%CI: 0.83-1.06). Conclusion: After controlling for individual socioeconomic status, community socioeconomic status was associa-ted with poor self-rated health for rural residents independent of individual socioeconomic status. Therefore, in order to improve the health status of the rural population, it needs not only individual-based health interventions, but also community-based health interventions.

Key words: Socioeconomic index, Self-rated health, Models, statistical, China

中图分类号:

王志成,郭岩. 中国社区社会经济地位和成人自评健康的关联研究[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(2): 314-319.

WANG Zhi-cheng,GUO Yan. Association between community socioeconomic status and adults’ self-rated health in China[J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(2): 314-319.

图/表 6

图1

图2

表1

表2

表3

图3

参考文献 22

[1]	中共中央国务院印发《“健康中国2030”规划纲要》. [EB/OL] (2016-10-25) [2019-03-25]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2016-10/25/content_5124174.htm.
[2]	Tang S, Meng Q, Chen L, et al. Tackling the challenges to health equity in China[J]. Lancet, 2008,372(9648):1493-1501. pmid: 18930531
[3]	Xu H, Xie Y. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in China: A reassessment with data from the 2010-2012 China Family Panel Studies[J]. Soc Indic Res, 2017,132(1):219-239. pmid: 28694561
[4]	Zhou M, Wang H, Zhu J, et al. Cause-specific mortality for 240 causes in China during 1990-2013: A systematic subnational analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013[J]. Lancet, 2016,387(10015):251-272. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00551-6 pmid: 26510778
[5]	Wang Y, Li X, Zhou M, et al. Under-5 mortality in 2 851 Chinese counties, 1996-2012: A subnational assessment of achieving MDG 4 goals in China[J]. Lancet, 2016,387(10015):273-283. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00554-1 pmid: 26510780
[6]	Noble M, Wright G, Smith G, et al. Measuring multiple deprivation at the small-area level[J]. Environ Plan A, 2006,38(1):169-185.
[7]	Pickett KE, Pearl M. Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socio-economic context and health outcomes: A critical review[J]. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2001,55(2):111-122. doi: 10.1136/jech.55.2.111 pmid: 11154250
[8]	Daponte-Codina A, Bolivar-Munoz J, Toro-Cardenas S, et al. Area deprivation and trends in inequalities in self-rated health in Spain, 1987-2001[J]. Scand J Public Health, 2008,36(5):504-515. pmid: 18567655
[9]	Xiao Q, Berrigan D, Matthews CE. A prospective investigation of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation and self-rated health in a large US cohort[J]. Health Place, 2017(44):70-76.
[10]	Rejineveld S. The impact of individual and area characteristics on urban socioeconomic differences in health and smoking[J]. Int J Epidemiol, 1998,27(1):33-40. pmid: 9563691
[11]	Lei L. The impact of community context on children’s health and nutritional status in China[J]. Soc Sci Med, 2017(179):172-181.
[12]	谢宇, 胡婧炜, 张春泥. 中国家庭追踪调查:理念与实践[J]. 社会, 2014(2):1-32.
[13]	Xie Y, Lu P. The sampling design of the China family panel stu-dies (CFPS)[J]. Chin J Sociol, 2015,1(4):471-484. pmid: 29854418
[14]	Xu H, Xie Y. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in China: A reassessment with data from the 2010-2012 China family panel studies[J]. Soc Indic Res, 2017,132(1):219-239. pmid: 28694561
[15]	Messer LC, Laraia BA, Kaufman JS, et al. The development of a standardized neighborhood deprivation index[J]. J Urban Health, 2006,83(6):1041-1062. pmid: 17031568
[16]	Desalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, et al. Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question. A meta-analysis[J]. J Gen Intern Med, 2006,21(3):267-275. pmid: 16336622
[17]	Jylha M. What is self-rated health and why does it predict mortality? Towards a unified conceptual model[J]. Soc Sci Med, 2009,69(3):307-316. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.05.013 pmid: 19520474
[18]	Galster GC. The mechanism (s) of neighbourhood effects: Theory, evidence, and policy implications[M]// Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht, Holland: Springer, 2012: 23-56.
[19]	Zhang X, Fan S, Zhang L, et al. Local governance and public goods provision in rural China[J]. J Public Econ, 2004,88(12):2857-2871.
[20]	Sylvia S, Shi Y, Xue H, et al. Survey using incognito stan-dardized patients shows poor quality care in China’s rural clinics[J]. Health Policy Plan, 2015,30(3):322-333. pmid: 24653216
[21]	Hosseinpoor AR, Bergen N, Schlotheuber A, et al. Measuring health inequalities in the context of sustainable development goals[J]. Bull World Health Organ, 2018,96(9):654-659. pmid: 30262947
[22]	关于实施健康扶贫工程的指导意见[EB/OL]. (2016-06-21) [2019-03-25]. http://www.gov.cn/xinwen/2016-06/21/content_5084195.htm.

相关文章 15

[1]	刘思民,赵一姣,王晓燕,王祖华. 动态导航下不同深度环钻定位精确度的体外评价[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(1): 146-152.
[2]	许颖,次仁央金. 高原红细胞增多症与消化性溃疡出血的关系[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2022, 54(1): 161-165.
[3]	贾睿璇,姜尚伟,赵琳,杨丽萍. Cyp4v3基因敲除小鼠模型的表型分析[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(6): 1099-1106.
[4]	敖英芳. 我国运动医学发展与北京冬奥会和健康中国建设[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(5): 823-827.
[5]	王贵红,左婷,李然,左正才. 瑞巴派特在大鼠痛风性关节炎急性发作中的作用[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(4): 716-720.
[6]	郭应禄. 夯实人才培养,实现我国泌尿外科奋斗目标[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(4): 633-634.
[7]	刘秋萍,陈汐瑾,王佳敏,刘晓非,司亚琴,梁靖媛,沈鹏,林鸿波,唐迅,高培. 基于马尔可夫模型的社区人群心血管病筛查策略的效果评价[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(3): 460-466.
[8]	王晓琪,陈美君,云青萍,孙思伟,王熙凯,史宇晖,纪颖,管仲军,常春. 门诊患者健康素养对就医体验的影响及机制[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(3): 560-565.
[9]	张佳伟, 韩沛恩, 杨莉. 新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情分级防控水平下北京市发热门诊空间可及性[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(3): 543-548.
[10]	陈怀安,刘硕,李秀君,王哲,张潮,李凤岐,苗文隆. 炎症生物标志物对输尿管尿路上皮癌患者预后预测的临床价值[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2021, 53(2): 302-307.
[11]	张晓圆,郭成成,玉应香,谢岚,常翠青. 高脂饲料诱导肥胖胰岛素抵抗大鼠模型的建立[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(3): 557-563.
[12]	萧宁,孙玉春,赵一姣,王勇. 三种数字化分析算法测量咬合接触分布及面积的对比研究[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(1): 144-151.
[13]	白珊珊,莫思怡,徐啸翔,刘云,谢秋菲,曹烨. 大鼠咬合干扰致口颌面痛敏的自我赏罚实验行为学特点[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2020, 52(1): 51-57.
[14]	杨飞龙,洪锴,赵国江,刘承,宋一萌,马潞林. 基于长链非编码RNA的生物信息学分析构建膀胱癌预后模型并确定预后生物标志物[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(4): 615-622.
[15]	朱学华,杨明钰,夏海缀,何为,张智荧,刘余庆,肖春雷,马潞林,卢剑. 机器学习模型在预测肾结石输尿管软镜碎石术后早期结石清除率中的应用[J]. 北京大学学报（医学版）, 2019, 51(4): 653-659.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed

Items	n(%)
Region
East	282 (48.87)
Middle	144 (24.96)
West	151 (26.17)
Average years of schooling
0-	249 (43.15)
6-	209 (36.22)
9-	108 (18.72)
12-	11 (1.91)
Average income (yuan)
0-	128 (22.18)
5 000-	236 (40.90)
10 000-	159 (27.56)
20 000-	54 (9.36)
Average wealth (10 000 yuan)
0-	337 (58.41)
5-	125 (21.66)
10-	61 (10.57)
20-	54 (9.36)

Items	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5
Adult illiteracy	52.46	35.96	24.89	19.43	10.92
Poverty	27.68	13.68	7.83	3.72	0.19
No safe water	71.49	67.90	50.02	16.94	2.87
No flushable toilet	91.29	77.49	77.64	46.74	10.19
No clean fuel	86.20	82.14	71.77	43.85	10.13

Variables	Urban (n=8 423)		Rural (n=22 898)
Variables	OR	95%CI	OR	95%CI
Community SEI	0.94	0.83-1.06	0.84	0.76-0.94
Gender
Female	Reference		Reference
Male	0.79	0.68-0.91	0.60	0.56-0.65
Age/years
16-24	Reference		Reference
25-34	1.66	0.82-3.37	2.37	1.78-3.16
35-44	7.76	3.87-15.54	6.17	4.67-8.15
45-54	11.12	5.54-22.35	11.79	8.92-15.58
55-64	14.38	7.07-29.25	18.03	13.59-23.92
65-	18.35	8.85-38.07	19.88	14.81-26.70
Marital status
Single	Reference		Reference
Married	0.60	0.38-0.97	0.79	0.63-0.99
Divorced	0.85	0.46-1.55	1.27	0.84-1.92
Widowed	0.64	0.37-1.08	0.82	0.63-1.07
Education
Illiterate	Reference		Reference
Elementary school	0.94	0.76-1.17	0.68	0.61-0.75
Junior high school	0.69	0.57-0.85	0.51	0.46-0.57
High school	0.69	0.55-0.87	0.46	0.39-0.55
College and above	0.56	0.42-0.76	0.31	0.20-0.48
Employment
Unemployed	Reference		Reference
Under education	0.14	0.04-0.49	0.25	0.14-0.45
Employed	0.46	0.38-0.56	0.56	0.50-0.62
Retired	0.71	0.56-0.88	0.74	0.63-0.87
Income (logarithm)	0.83	0.75-0.92	0.90	0.86-0.94
Wealth (logarithm)	0.92	0.89-0.95	0.91	0.89-0.94
ICC	0.06		0.10