Tabuchi Takahiro, Nakaya Tomoki, Fukushima Wakaba, Matsunaga Ichiro, Ohfuji Satoko, Kondo Kyoko, Inui Miki, Sayanagi Yuka, Hirota Yoshio, Kawano Eiji, Fukuhara Hiroyuki
Center for Cancer Control and Statistics, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, 3-3 Nakamichi 1-Chome, Higashinari-ku, Osaka, 537-8511, Japan.
BMC Public Health. 2014 May 13;14:449. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-449.
Several studies have reported that individualized residential place-based discrimination (PBD) affects residents' health. However, studies exploring the association between institutionalized PBD and health are scarce, especially in Asian countries including Japan.
A cross-sectional study was conducted with random two-stage sampling of 6191 adults aged 25-64 years in 100 census tracts across Osaka city in 2011. Of 3244 respondents (response rate 52.4%), 2963 were analyzed using multilevel logistic regression to examine the association of both individualized and institutionalized PBD with self-rated health (SRH) after adjustment for individual-level factors such as socioeconomic status (SES). An area-level PBD indicator was created by aggregating individual-level PBD responses in each tract, representing a proxy for institutionalized PBD, i.e., the concept that living in a stigmatized neighborhood affects neighborhood health. 100 tracts were divided into quartiles in order. The health impact of area-level PBD was compared with that of area-level SES indicators (quartile) such as deprivation.
After adjustment for individual-level PBD, the highest and third area-level PBD quartiles showed odds ratio (OR) 1.57 (95% credible interval: 1.13-2.18) and 1.38 (0.99-1.92), respectively, for poor SRH compared with the lowest area-level PBD quartile. In a further SES-adjusted model, ORs of area-level PBD (highest and third quartile) were attenuated to 1.32 and 1.31, respectively, but remained marginally significant, although those of the highest area-level not-home-owner (census-based indicator) and deprivation index quartiles were attenuated to 1.26 and 1.21, respectively, and not significant. Individual-level PBD showed significant OR 1.89 (1.33-2.81) for poor SRH in an age, sex, PBD and SES-adjusted model.
Institutionalized PBD may be a more important environmental determinant of SRH than other area-level SES indicators such as deprivation. Although it may have a smaller health impact than individualized PBD, attention should be paid to invisible and unconscious aspects of institutionalized PBD to improve residents' health.
多项研究报告称,个性化的基于居住地的歧视(PBD)会影响居民健康。然而,探索制度化PBD与健康之间关联的研究较少,尤其是在包括日本在内的亚洲国家。
2011年,在大阪市100个人口普查区对6191名25 - 64岁成年人进行了随机两阶段抽样的横断面研究。在3244名受访者(回复率52.4%)中,2963人使用多水平逻辑回归进行分析,以检验在调整社会经济地位(SES)等个体层面因素后,个性化和制度化PBD与自评健康(SRH)之间的关联。通过汇总每个普查区个体层面的PBD回复创建了一个区域层面的PBD指标,代表制度化PBD的一个代理指标,即生活在受污名化社区会影响社区健康的概念。100个普查区分成四分位数顺序排列。将区域层面PBD的健康影响与区域层面的SES指标(四分位数)如贫困程度进行比较。
在调整个体层面的PBD后,与区域层面PBD最低四分位数相比,区域层面PBD最高和第三四分位数显示,自评健康状况差的比值比(OR)分别为1.57(95%可信区间:1.13 - 2.18)和1.38(0.99 - 1.92)。在进一步调整SES的模型中,区域层面PBD(最高和第三四分位数)的OR分别降至1.32和1.31,但仍具有边缘显著性,而区域层面最高的非房主(基于人口普查的指标)和贫困指数四分位数的OR分别降至1.26和1.21,且无显著性。在年龄、性别、PBD和SES调整模型中,个体层面的PBD显示自评健康状况差的显著OR为1.89(1.33 - 2.81)。
制度化PBD可能是自评健康比贫困等其他区域层面SES指标更重要的环境决定因素。尽管它对健康的影响可能比个性化PBD小,但应关注制度化PBD无形和无意识的方面以改善居民健康。