How do multiple deprivations in nuanced urban and rural settings affect health differently in South Africa? Evidence from NIDS data, 2017.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMJ Open Pub Date : 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088076
Msawenkosi Dlamini, Josue Mbonigaba
{"title":"How do multiple deprivations in nuanced urban and rural settings affect health differently in South Africa? Evidence from NIDS data, 2017.","authors":"Msawenkosi Dlamini, Josue Mbonigaba","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction/objective: </strong>Previous research on socioeconomic factors influencing health outcomes has often centred on the urban-rural divide, overlooking the nuanced variations within these categories. This study enhances our understanding by moving beyond traditional comparisons to examine the specific impacts of multiple deprivations on self-rated health across traditional authority areas, rural formal areas, urban informal areas and urban formal areas. By doing so, it captures the unique challenges and health implications associated with varying deprivation levels within these diverse contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We first constructed the Provincial Index of Multiple Deprivation for each selected region using Wave 5 data from the National Income Dynamics Study, enabling an assessment of the health impacts of multiple deprivations across South Africa. During the estimation of the ordered probit model, collinearity issues emerged. To address this, we applied Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to create independent components which were then incorporated into the model. Self-reported health (SRH) was used as the dependent variable, allowing us to gain valuable insights into the relationship between health and multiple deprivation within these four contexts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study uncovers significant disparities in deprivations, with the most deprived areas being rural formal areas and traditional authorities' areas and the least deprived being the urban formal areas. The PCA variables in the ordered probit model suggest that traditional and rural formal areas soften the effect of multiple deprivations on SRH relative to urban areas. In contrast, informal urban areas enhance the negative effect of multiple deprivation SRH relative to urban formal areas.</p><p><strong>Conclusion/recommendations: </strong>The interaction between multiple deprivation variables and the specific areas examined in this study reveals varying impacts on health. Greater attention should be given to finer geographical characteristics in residential contexts to ensure that interventions are tailored effectively to the specific needs of each area. This focus is particularly important, as the local context may significantly impact health-a fundamental component of life and well-being.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":"15 1","pages":"e088076"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11781132/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-088076","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction/objective: Previous research on socioeconomic factors influencing health outcomes has often centred on the urban-rural divide, overlooking the nuanced variations within these categories. This study enhances our understanding by moving beyond traditional comparisons to examine the specific impacts of multiple deprivations on self-rated health across traditional authority areas, rural formal areas, urban informal areas and urban formal areas. By doing so, it captures the unique challenges and health implications associated with varying deprivation levels within these diverse contexts.

Methods: We first constructed the Provincial Index of Multiple Deprivation for each selected region using Wave 5 data from the National Income Dynamics Study, enabling an assessment of the health impacts of multiple deprivations across South Africa. During the estimation of the ordered probit model, collinearity issues emerged. To address this, we applied Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to create independent components which were then incorporated into the model. Self-reported health (SRH) was used as the dependent variable, allowing us to gain valuable insights into the relationship between health and multiple deprivation within these four contexts.

Results: The study uncovers significant disparities in deprivations, with the most deprived areas being rural formal areas and traditional authorities' areas and the least deprived being the urban formal areas. The PCA variables in the ordered probit model suggest that traditional and rural formal areas soften the effect of multiple deprivations on SRH relative to urban areas. In contrast, informal urban areas enhance the negative effect of multiple deprivation SRH relative to urban formal areas.

Conclusion/recommendations: The interaction between multiple deprivation variables and the specific areas examined in this study reveals varying impacts on health. Greater attention should be given to finer geographical characteristics in residential contexts to ensure that interventions are tailored effectively to the specific needs of each area. This focus is particularly important, as the local context may significantly impact health-a fundamental component of life and well-being.

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
在南非,微妙的城市和农村环境中的多重剥夺如何以不同的方式影响健康?来自2017年NIDS数据的证据。
前言/目的:以往关于影响健康结果的社会经济因素的研究往往集中在城乡差异上,忽视了这些类别内的细微差异。这项研究通过超越传统的比较来研究多重剥夺对传统权威地区、农村正规地区、城市非正规地区和城市正规地区的自评健康的具体影响,从而增强了我们的理解。通过这样做,它抓住了在这些不同背景下与不同贫困程度有关的独特挑战和健康影响。方法:我们首先使用国民收入动态研究的第5波数据为每个选定地区构建了多重贫困省级指数,从而能够评估南非各地多重贫困对健康的影响。在有序概率模型的估计过程中,出现了共线性问题。为了解决这个问题,我们应用主成分分析(PCA)来创建独立的组件,然后将其合并到模型中。自我报告健康(SRH)被用作因变量,使我们能够在这四种情况下对健康与多重剥夺之间的关系获得有价值的见解。结果:研究揭示了贫困程度的显著差异,最贫困的地区是农村正规地区和传统权威地区,最贫困的地区是城市正规地区。有序概率模型中的PCA变量表明,相对于城市地区,传统和农村正规地区的多重剥夺对生殖健康的影响较弱。相反,相对于城市正规地区,非正规城市地区增强了多重剥夺性生殖健康的负面影响。结论/建议:本研究考察的多个剥夺变量与特定领域之间的相互作用揭示了对健康的不同影响。应更多地注意住宅环境中更精细的地理特征,以确保有效地根据每个地区的具体需要进行干预。这一重点特别重要,因为当地情况可能对健康产生重大影响——健康是生活和福祉的基本组成部分。
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
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of periodontal therapy in preventing tooth loss and improving masticatory function in patients with chronic kidney disease: a protocol for a single-centre randomised controlled trial in China. Exploring collaboration preferences of health care professionals and patients regarding treatment decision making in severe asthma: a qualitative study in The Netherlands. General practitioner confidence and practices in oral anticoagulant use for atrial fibrillation in Australia: findings from a cross-sectional study. Mapping the landscape of concept analysis in nursing and auditing reporting completeness: a scoping review protocol. LIFE-UP Day audit to monitor implementation of post-intensive care syndrome prevention practices: a multicentre cross-sectional study in Belgian intensive care units.
×
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:604180095
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