Social determinants of health: from the concept to the practice in outcomes of unintended pregnancies which result in induced abortion

Carmen Fusco , Marco Akerman , Jefferson Drezett , Rebeca de Souza e Silva
{"title":"Social determinants of health: from the concept to the practice in outcomes of unintended pregnancies which result in induced abortion","authors":"Carmen Fusco ,&nbsp;Marco Akerman ,&nbsp;Jefferson Drezett ,&nbsp;Rebeca de Souza e Silva","doi":"10.1016/j.recli.2015.12.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The present research is a continuation of another one previously developed about unsafe abortion, associated socio-demographic characteristics and morbidity, and goes further in its analysis of the social determinants of health that influence this occurrence, generating inequities in health. This study compared data of three groups of 51 women (total of 153) submitted to induced abortion, as per situation and site of the procedure: one with “unsafe abortion” (Slum), one with “legal and safe” induced abortion (Public hospital) and a third group with “illegal and safe” induced abortion (Private clinics with appropriate standard of care). Univariate and multiple analyses of multiple multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed for the three categories with Private as reference. In the final model, the variables that proved to have a statistically significant association with induced abortion (CI<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->95%; <em>p</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.05) were: income, level of schooling, ethnicity/color and place of birth for Slum and, for the Hospital location, the variable ethnicity lost significance. Morbidity, resulting from the outcome, showed a highly significant discrepancy between the first sample (Slum), with 94.12% of women who reported post-abortion complications, and the other two samples (Hospital and Private) in which no case of complication was identified or reported. A critical analysis was also made on the influence of the social determinants of health implied in abortion in all samples, and on the degree of inequity generated in each one (intra-group) and among them. We aimed to better understand social determinants of health concepts in practice. Proposals of action/intervention related to the “entry points” and findings were also suggested.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101073,"journal":{"name":"Reprodu??o & Climatério","volume":"31 1","pages":"Pages 22-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.recli.2015.12.003","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reprodu??o & Climatério","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413208715000795","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The present research is a continuation of another one previously developed about unsafe abortion, associated socio-demographic characteristics and morbidity, and goes further in its analysis of the social determinants of health that influence this occurrence, generating inequities in health. This study compared data of three groups of 51 women (total of 153) submitted to induced abortion, as per situation and site of the procedure: one with “unsafe abortion” (Slum), one with “legal and safe” induced abortion (Public hospital) and a third group with “illegal and safe” induced abortion (Private clinics with appropriate standard of care). Univariate and multiple analyses of multiple multinomial logistic regression analyses were performed for the three categories with Private as reference. In the final model, the variables that proved to have a statistically significant association with induced abortion (CI = 95%; p < 0.05) were: income, level of schooling, ethnicity/color and place of birth for Slum and, for the Hospital location, the variable ethnicity lost significance. Morbidity, resulting from the outcome, showed a highly significant discrepancy between the first sample (Slum), with 94.12% of women who reported post-abortion complications, and the other two samples (Hospital and Private) in which no case of complication was identified or reported. A critical analysis was also made on the influence of the social determinants of health implied in abortion in all samples, and on the degree of inequity generated in each one (intra-group) and among them. We aimed to better understand social determinants of health concepts in practice. Proposals of action/intervention related to the “entry points” and findings were also suggested.

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
健康的社会决定因素:从概念到导致人工流产的意外怀孕结果的实践
目前的研究是先前关于不安全堕胎、相关的社会人口特征和发病率的另一项研究的延续,并进一步分析了影响这种情况、造成健康不平等的健康社会决定因素。这项研究比较了三组接受人工流产的51名妇女(总共153人)的数据,按情况和手术地点进行了比较:一组是"不安全流产"(贫民窟),一组是"合法和安全"的人工流产(公立医院),第三组是"非法和安全"的人工流产(具有适当护理标准的私人诊所)。以Private为参照,对三类进行单因素和多因素logistic回归分析。在最终模型中,被证明与人工流产有统计学显著相关的变量(CI = 95%;p & lt;0.05)为:贫民窟的收入、受教育程度、种族/肤色和出生地,而对于医院所在地,种族这一变量失去了意义。结果导致的发病率显示,第一个样本(贫民窟)中有94.12%的妇女报告了流产后并发症,而另外两个样本(医院和私立)中没有发现或报告任何并发症。还对所有样本中堕胎所隐含的健康社会决定因素的影响进行了批判性分析,并对每个样本(组内)及其之间产生的不平等程度进行了批判性分析。我们的目标是在实践中更好地了解健康概念的社会决定因素。还提出了与“切入点”和调查结果有关的行动/干预建议。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Alteração menstrual e qualidade de vida em professoras da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Brasil Outcomes of GnRH agonist triggering in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review Perfil diferencial de transcritos em endométrio eutópico de mulheres inférteis com endometriose e controles durante a janela de implantação Dieta isenta de glúten e risco de desfechos gestacionais desfavoráveis em mulheres com doença celíaca: revisão sistemática Male infertility profile in an assisted human reproduction clinic from the south of Santa Catarina, Brazil, from 2012 to 2014
×
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