An Analysis of the Social Determinants of Health in South Carolina's I-95 Corridor.

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Promotion Practice Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-22 DOI:10.1177/15248399221142517
Jennifer Mandelbaum, Jennifer Almeda, Shanikque Blackwell, John W Hopkins, Kristian Myers, Shauna Hicks, Virginie G Daguise
{"title":"An Analysis of the Social Determinants of Health in South Carolina's I-95 Corridor.","authors":"Jennifer Mandelbaum, Jennifer Almeda, Shanikque Blackwell, John W Hopkins, Kristian Myers, Shauna Hicks, Virginie G Daguise","doi":"10.1177/15248399221142517","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>One in four South Carolinians lives in a county along a nearly 200-mile stretch of Interstate 95 (I-95). Stretching from North Carolina to Georgia, this region is among the most rural, economically depressed, and racially/ethnically diverse in the state. Research is needed to identify social factors contributing to adverse health outcomes along the I-95 corridor, guide interventions, and establish a baseline for measuring progress. This study assessed social determinants of health in counties in South Carolina's I-95 corridor relative to the rest of the state.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Data for South Carolina's 46 counties were extracted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Minority Health Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), which grouped 34 census variables into six themes: socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, minority status and language, housing type and transportation, health care infrastructure, and medical vulnerability. Each theme was ranked from <u>0</u> (least vulnerable) to <u>1</u> (most vulnerable). Measures between regions were compared using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Compared with counties outside the I-95 corridor (n <u>= 29</u>), counties in the corridor (n <u>= 17</u>) scored higher on socioeconomic status vulnerability (.67 and .82, respectively) and medical vulnerability (.65 and .79, respectively). No statistically significant differences were found across other themes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Identifying social determinants of health in South Carolina's I-95 corridor is a crucial first step toward alleviating health disparities in this region. Interventions and policies should be developed in collaboration with local stakeholders to address distal social factors that create and reinforce health disparities.</p>","PeriodicalId":47956,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399221142517","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: One in four South Carolinians lives in a county along a nearly 200-mile stretch of Interstate 95 (I-95). Stretching from North Carolina to Georgia, this region is among the most rural, economically depressed, and racially/ethnically diverse in the state. Research is needed to identify social factors contributing to adverse health outcomes along the I-95 corridor, guide interventions, and establish a baseline for measuring progress. This study assessed social determinants of health in counties in South Carolina's I-95 corridor relative to the rest of the state.

Method: Data for South Carolina's 46 counties were extracted from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Minority Health Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), which grouped 34 census variables into six themes: socioeconomic status, household composition and disability, minority status and language, housing type and transportation, health care infrastructure, and medical vulnerability. Each theme was ranked from 0 (least vulnerable) to 1 (most vulnerable). Measures between regions were compared using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test.

Results: Compared with counties outside the I-95 corridor (n = 29), counties in the corridor (n = 17) scored higher on socioeconomic status vulnerability (.67 and .82, respectively) and medical vulnerability (.65 and .79, respectively). No statistically significant differences were found across other themes.

Conclusion: Identifying social determinants of health in South Carolina's I-95 corridor is a crucial first step toward alleviating health disparities in this region. Interventions and policies should be developed in collaboration with local stakeholders to address distal social factors that create and reinforce health disparities.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
南卡罗来纳州 I-95 州际公路走廊的健康社会决定因素分析。
背景:每四个南卡罗来纳州人中就有一人居住在 95 号州际公路(I-95)近 200 英里沿线的一个县。该地区从北卡罗来纳州一直延伸到佐治亚州,是该州农村人口最多、经济最萧条、种族/民族最多样化的地区之一。需要开展研究,以确定导致 I-95 州际公路走廊沿线不良健康结果的社会因素,指导干预措施,并建立衡量进展的基线。本研究评估了南卡罗来纳州 I-95 州际公路走廊各县相对于该州其他地区的健康社会决定因素:南卡罗来纳州 46 个县的数据来自美国疾病控制和预防中心的少数族裔健康社会脆弱性指数 (SVI),该指数将 34 个人口普查变量分为六个主题:社会经济地位、家庭组成和残疾、少数族裔地位和语言、住房类型和交通、医疗保健基础设施以及医疗脆弱性。每个主题从 0(最不脆弱)到 1(最脆弱)进行排序。使用 Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney 检验比较不同地区之间的测量结果:与 I-95 州际公路走廊以外的县(n = 29)相比,走廊内的县(n = 17)在社会经济地位脆弱性(分别为 0.67 和 0.82)和医疗脆弱性(分别为 0.65 和 0.79)方面得分更高。其他主题在统计上没有明显差异:确定南卡罗来纳州 I-95 州际公路走廊的健康社会决定因素是缓解该地区健康差异的关键性第一步。应与当地利益相关者合作制定干预措施和政策,以解决造成和加剧健康差异的远端社会因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Promotion Practice
Health Promotion Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
126
期刊介绍: Health Promotion Practice (HPP) publishes authoritative articles devoted to the practical application of health promotion and education. It publishes information of strategic importance to a broad base of professionals engaged in the practice of developing, implementing, and evaluating health promotion and disease prevention programs. The journal"s editorial board is committed to focusing on the applications of health promotion and public health education interventions, programs and best practice strategies in various settings, including but not limited to, community, health care, worksite, educational, and international settings. Additionally, the journal focuses on the development and application of public policy conducive to the promotion of health and prevention of disease.
期刊最新文献
Cultural Predictors of Self-Esteem Among Black Women With Criminal Justice Involvement and Herpes Simplex Virus. Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Father Participation in an Adolescent Obesity Prevention Program With Multiple Delivery Methods. Evaluation of a Mandatory Professional Development on Supporting Transgender, Nonbinary, and Gender-Nonconforming Students in Chicago Public Schools. The Pre-Implementation Phase of a Project Seeking to Deliver a Community-Based CVD Prevention Intervention (SPICES-Sussex): A Qualitative Study Exploring Views and Experience Relating to Intervention Development. Barriers and Facilitators to Integrating Depression Treatment Within a TB Program and Primary Care in Brazil.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1