| Title |
Health inequalities in hypertension and diabetes management among the poor in urban areas: a population survey analysis in south Korea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-016-3169-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Young-Jee Jeon, Chung Reen Kim, Joo-Sung Park, Kyung-Hyun Choi, Myoung Joo Kang, Seung Guk Park, Young-Jin Park |
| Abstract |
This study investigated whether the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension and diabetes differed by residential areas. In addition, the rate of good hypertension or diabetes control was examined separately in men and women, and in urban and rural areas. This study used Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination V (2010-2012) data, a nationwide cross-sectional survey of general South Korean population. Residential areas were categorized into urban and rural areas. To examine differences between the residential areas in terms of prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension and diabetes we performed a multivariate logistic regression adjusting for age, body mass index, physical activity, alcohol use, smoking, marital status, monthly income, and educational level. To investigate control of hypertension or diabetes within each residential area, we performed a subgroup analysis in both urban and rural areas. The prevalence of hypertension is higher among men in urban areas than among those in rural areas (OR = 0.80; 95 % CI = 0.67-0.96, reference group = urban areas). However, the subgroups did not differ in terms of diabetes prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control. Regardless of both sex and residential area, participants in good control of their hypertension and diabetes were younger. Inequality in good control of hypertension was observed in men who lived in urban (≤Elementary school, OR 0.74, 95 % CI 0.60-0.92) and rural areas (≤Elementary school, OR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.46-0.99). Inequality in health status was found in women who resided in urban areas (≤Elementary school, OR 0.53, 95 % CI 0.37-0.75). Good control of diabetes also showed inequalities in health status for both men (≤Elementary school, OR 0.61, 95 % CI 0.40-0.94; Middle/High school, OR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.49-0.96) and women in urban areas (≤1 million won, OR 0.56, 95 % CI 0.33-0.93) (Reference group = '≥College' for education and '>3 million' Korean won for income). After correction for individual socioeconomic status, differences by residential area were not observed. However, when the participants with good disease control were divided by region, inequality was confirmed in urban residents. Therefore, differentiated health policies to resolve individual and regional health inequalities are necessary. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 77 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Professor | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 14% |
| Unknown | 23 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 24 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,265,823
of 22,877,793 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,374
of 14,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,164
of 345,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#158
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,877,793 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,917 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.