首页 > 最新文献

Mmwr Surveillance Summaries最新文献

英文 中文
Disparities in Preconception Health Indicators - 
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2013-2015, and Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, 2013-2014. 孕前健康指标的差异 - 行为风险因素监测系统,2013-2015 年,以及妊娠风险评估监测系统,2013-2014 年。
IF 24.9 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2018-01-19 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6701a1
Cheryl Robbins, Sheree L Boulet, Isabel Morgan, Denise V D'Angelo, Lauren B Zapata, Brian Morrow, Andrea Sharma, Charlan D Kroelinger
<p><strong>Problem/condition: </strong>Preconception health is a broad term that encompasses the overall health of nonpregnant women during their reproductive years (defined here as aged 18-44 years). Improvement of both birth outcomes and the woman's health occurs when preconception health is optimized. Improving preconception health before and between pregnancies is critical for reducing maternal and infant mortality and pregnancy-related complications. The National Preconception Health and Health Care Initiative's Surveillance and Research work group suggests ten prioritized indicators that states can use to monitor programs or activities for improving the preconception health status of women of reproductive age. This report includes overall and stratified estimates for nine of these preconception health indicators.</p><p><strong>Reporting period: </strong>2013-2015.</p><p><strong>Description of systems: </strong>Survey data from two surveillance systems are included in this report. The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is an ongoing state-based, landline and cellular telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults in the United States aged ≥18 years that is conducted by state and territorial health departments. BRFSS is the main source of self-reported data for states on health risk behaviors, chronic health conditions, and preventive health services primarily related to chronic disease in the United States. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) is an ongoing U.S. state- and population-based surveillance system administered collaboratively by CDC and state health departments. PRAMS is designed to monitor selected maternal behaviors, conditions, and experiences that occur before, during, and shortly after pregnancy that are self-reported by women who recently delivered a live-born infant. This report summarizes BRFSS and PRAMS data on nine of 10 prioritized preconception health indicators (i.e., depression, diabetes, hypertension, current cigarette smoking, normal weight, recommended physical activity, recent unwanted pregnancy, prepregnancy multivitamin use, and postpartum use of a most or moderately effective contraceptive method) for which the most recent data are available. BRFSS data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia were used for six preconception health indicators: depression, diabetes (excluded if occurring only during pregnancy or if limited to borderline/prediabetes conditions), hypertension (excluded if occurring only during pregnancy or if limited to borderline/prehypertension conditions), current cigarette smoking, normal weight, and recommended physical activity. PRAMS data from 30 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City were used for three preconception health indicators: recent unwanted pregnancy, prepregnancy multivitamin use, and postpartum use of a most or moderately effective contraceptive method by women or their husbands or partners (i.e., male or female sterili
问题/条件:孕前健康是一个广义的术语,包括未怀孕妇女在育龄期(此处定义为 18-44 岁)的整体健康。孕前健康得到优化,可改善分娩结果和妇女健康。在怀孕前和怀孕期间改善孕前健康对降低母婴死亡率和与妊娠有关的并发症至关重要。国家孕前健康和保健倡议的监测与研究工作组提出了十项优先指标,各州可利用这些指标监测改善育龄妇女孕前健康状况的计划或活动。本报告包括其中九项孕前健康指标的总体和分层估计值:本报告包括两个监测系统的调查数据。行为风险因素监测系统(BRFSS)是由各州和地区卫生部门对美国年龄≥18 岁的非住院成年人进行的一项以州为基础的固定电话和移动电话调查。BRFSS是各州自我报告健康风险行为、慢性健康状况以及主要与美国慢性疾病相关的预防保健服务数据的主要来源。妊娠风险评估监测系统(PRAMS)是由美国疾病预防控制中心和各州卫生部门合作管理的一个以州和人口为基础的持续性监测系统。PRAMS 旨在监测由最近分娩活产婴儿的妇女自我报告的孕前、孕期和产后不久发生的特定孕产妇行为、状况和经历。本报告总结了 BRFSS 和 PRAMS 数据中 10 个优先孕前健康指标(即抑郁症、糖尿病、高血压、目前吸烟、正常体重、建议的体育锻炼、近期意外怀孕、孕前多种维生素的使用以及产后使用最有效或中等有效避孕方法)中的 9 个指标的最新数据。所有 50 个州和哥伦比亚特区的 BRFSS 数据被用于六项孕前健康指标:抑郁症、糖尿病(如果仅发生在怀孕期间或仅限于边缘/糖尿病前期状况,则排除在外)、高血压(如果仅发生在怀孕期间或仅限于边缘/高血压前期状况,则排除在外)、当前吸烟情况、正常体重和建议的体育锻炼。来自 30 个州、哥伦比亚特区和纽约市的 PRAMS 数据被用于三个孕前健康指标:近期意外怀孕、孕前服用多种维生素、产后妇女或其丈夫或伴侣使用最有效或中等有效的避孕方法(即男性或女性绝育、荷尔蒙植入、宫内避孕器、注射避孕药、口服避孕药、荷尔蒙贴片或阴道环)。孕前 3 个月内大量饮酒也包含在优先考虑的 10 项指标中,但每个报告地区的 PRAMS 数据要到 2016 年才能获得该指标。因此,重度饮酒的估计值未包含在本报告中。所有 BRFSS 孕前健康估计值均基于 2014-2015 年的数据,只有两项除外(高血压和建议的体育活动基于 2013 年和 2015 年的数据)。所有 PRAMS 孕前健康估计值均基于 2013-2014 年数据。报告了 18-44 岁女性总体、各年龄组、种族-民族、医疗保险状况和报告地区的指标流行率估计值。对不同年龄组、种族/民族和保险状况的指标差异进行了卡方检验:在 2013-2015 年期间,代表风险因素的指标的流行率估计值在老年妇女(35-44 岁)、非西班牙裔黑人妇女、无保险妇女和居住在南部各州的妇女中普遍最高,而健康促进指标的流行率估计值则普遍最低。例如,曾经被医疗服务提供者告知患有抑郁症的患病率在 35-44 岁的妇女中最高(23.1%),在 18-24 岁的妇女中最低(19.2%)。产后使用最有效或中等有效避孕方法的比例在 35-44 岁的女性中最低(50.6%),在 18-24 岁的年轻女性中最高(64.9%)。在非西班牙裔黑人妇女中,自我报告孕前使用多种维生素和达到建议体育锻炼水平的比例最低(分别为 21.6% 和 42.8%),而在非西班牙裔白人妇女中则最高(分别为 37.8% 和 53.8%)。非西班牙裔白人妇女中最近意外怀孕的比例最低,非西班牙裔黑人妇女中意外怀孕的比例最高(分别为 5.0% 和 11.6%)。
{"title":"Disparities in Preconception Health Indicators - \u2028Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2013-2015, and Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, 2013-2014.","authors":"Cheryl Robbins, Sheree L Boulet, Isabel Morgan, Denise V D'Angelo, Lauren B Zapata, Brian Morrow, Andrea Sharma, Charlan D Kroelinger","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6701a1","DOIUrl":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6701a1","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Problem/condition: &lt;/strong&gt;Preconception health is a broad term that encompasses the overall health of nonpregnant women during their reproductive years (defined here as aged 18-44 years). Improvement of both birth outcomes and the woman's health occurs when preconception health is optimized. Improving preconception health before and between pregnancies is critical for reducing maternal and infant mortality and pregnancy-related complications. The National Preconception Health and Health Care Initiative's Surveillance and Research work group suggests ten prioritized indicators that states can use to monitor programs or activities for improving the preconception health status of women of reproductive age. This report includes overall and stratified estimates for nine of these preconception health indicators.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reporting period: &lt;/strong&gt;2013-2015.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Description of systems: &lt;/strong&gt;Survey data from two surveillance systems are included in this report. The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is an ongoing state-based, landline and cellular telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults in the United States aged ≥18 years that is conducted by state and territorial health departments. BRFSS is the main source of self-reported data for states on health risk behaviors, chronic health conditions, and preventive health services primarily related to chronic disease in the United States. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) is an ongoing U.S. state- and population-based surveillance system administered collaboratively by CDC and state health departments. PRAMS is designed to monitor selected maternal behaviors, conditions, and experiences that occur before, during, and shortly after pregnancy that are self-reported by women who recently delivered a live-born infant. This report summarizes BRFSS and PRAMS data on nine of 10 prioritized preconception health indicators (i.e., depression, diabetes, hypertension, current cigarette smoking, normal weight, recommended physical activity, recent unwanted pregnancy, prepregnancy multivitamin use, and postpartum use of a most or moderately effective contraceptive method) for which the most recent data are available. BRFSS data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia were used for six preconception health indicators: depression, diabetes (excluded if occurring only during pregnancy or if limited to borderline/prediabetes conditions), hypertension (excluded if occurring only during pregnancy or if limited to borderline/prehypertension conditions), current cigarette smoking, normal weight, and recommended physical activity. PRAMS data from 30 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City were used for three preconception health indicators: recent unwanted pregnancy, prepregnancy multivitamin use, and postpartum use of a most or moderately effective contraceptive method by women or their husbands or partners (i.e., male or female sterili","PeriodicalId":48549,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Surveillance Summaries","volume":"67 1","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":24.9,"publicationDate":"2018-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829866/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35748188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2014. 堕胎监测-美国,2014年。
IF 24.9 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2017-11-24 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6624a1
Tara C Jatlaoui, Jill Shah, Michele G Mandel, Jamie W Krashin, Danielle B Suchdev, Denise J Jamieson, Karen Pazol
<p><strong>Problem/condition: </strong>Since 1969, CDC has conducted abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions in the United States.</p><p><strong>Period covered: </strong>2014.</p><p><strong>Description of system: </strong>Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). The reporting areas provide this information voluntarily. For 2014, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For trend analysis, abortion data were evaluated from 48 areas that reported data every year during 2005-2014. Census and natality data, respectively, were used to calculate abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 652,639 abortions were reported to CDC for 2014. Of these abortions, 98.4% were from the 48 reporting areas that provided data every year during 2005-2014. Among these 48 reporting areas, the abortion rate for 2014 was 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, and the abortion ratio was 186 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2013 to 2014, the total number and rate of reported abortions decreased 2%, and the ratio decreased 7%. From 2005 to 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 21%, 22%, and 21%, respectively. In 2014, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2005-2014). In 2014 and throughout the period of analysis, women in their 20s accounted for the majority of abortions and had the highest abortion rates; women in their 30s and older accounted for a much smaller percentage of abortions and had lower abortion rates. In 2014, women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years accounted for 32.2% and 26.7% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 21.3 and 18.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years, respectively. In contrast, women aged 30-34, 35-39, and ≥40 years accounted for 17.1%, 9.7%, and 3.6% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 11.9, 7.2, and 2.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 30-34 years, 35-39 years, and ≥40 years, respectively. From 2005 to 2014, the abortion rate decreased among women aged 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, and 35-39 years by 27%, 16%, 12%, and 5%, respectively, but increased 4% among women aged ≥40 years. In 2014, adolescents aged <15 and 15-19 years accounted for 0.3% and 10.4% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 0.5 and 7.5 abortions per 1,000 adolescents aged <15 and 15-19 years, respectively. From 2005 to 2014, the percentage of abortions accounted for by adolescents aged 15-19 years decreased 38%, and their abortion rate decreased 49%. These decreases were greater than the decreases for women in any older age group. In contrast to the percentage distribution of abortions and abo
问题/状况:自1969年以来,美国疾病控制与预防中心进行了堕胎监测,记录了美国合法堕胎妇女的数量和特征。涵盖时间:2014年。系统描述:每年,疾病预防控制中心要求52个报告地区(50个州、哥伦比亚特区和纽约市)的中央卫生机构提供堕胎数据。报告地区自愿提供这些信息。2014年,从49个报告地区收到了数据。为进行趋势分析,对2005-2014年每年报告数据的48个地区的堕胎数据进行了评估。分别使用人口普查和出生数据来计算堕胎率(每1,000名15-44岁妇女的堕胎次数)和比率(每1,000名活产的堕胎次数)。结果:2014年共向疾病预防控制中心报告652,639例堕胎。在这些堕胎中,98.4%来自2005-2014年间每年提供数据的48个报告地区。在这48个报告地区中,2014年堕胎率为每1000名15-44岁妇女12.1例堕胎,堕胎率为每1000例活产186例堕胎。从2013年到2014年,报告的堕胎总数和比率下降了2%,比例下降了7%。从2005年到2014年,报告的堕胎总数、比率和比例分别下降了21%、22%和21%。2014年,所有三项指标都达到了整个分析期间(2005-2014年)的最低水平。在2014年和整个分析期间,20多岁的女性占堕胎的大多数,堕胎率最高;30多岁及以上的女性所占的堕胎比例要小得多,堕胎率也较低。2014年,20-24岁和25-29岁的女性分别占所有报告堕胎的32.2%和26.7%,20-24岁和25-29岁女性的堕胎率分别为21.3例和18.4例。相比之下,30-34岁、35-39岁和≥40岁的女性分别占所有报告流产的17.1%、9.7%和3.6%,每1000名30-34岁、35-39岁和≥40岁女性的流产率分别为11.9、7.2和2.6。2005 - 2014年,20-24岁、25-29岁、30-34岁和35-39岁女性的流产率分别下降27%、16%、12%和5%,而≥40岁女性的流产率上升4%。2014年,怀孕13周的青少年;(解释:在2005-2014年每年报告数据的48个地区中,2010-2013年报告的堕胎总数、比率和比例在2013年至2014年持续下降,导致所有三种堕胎措施都处于历史低点。公共卫生行动:本报告中的数据可以帮助方案规划者和决策者确定堕胎率最高的妇女群体。意外怀孕是人工流产的主要原因。增加有效避孕措施的获取和使用可以减少意外怀孕,并进一步减少美国的堕胎数量。
{"title":"Abortion Surveillance - United States, 2014.","authors":"Tara C Jatlaoui,&nbsp;Jill Shah,&nbsp;Michele G Mandel,&nbsp;Jamie W Krashin,&nbsp;Danielle B Suchdev,&nbsp;Denise J Jamieson,&nbsp;Karen Pazol","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6624a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6624a1","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Problem/condition: &lt;/strong&gt;Since 1969, CDC has conducted abortion surveillance to document the number and characteristics of women obtaining legal induced abortions in the United States.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Period covered: &lt;/strong&gt;2014.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Description of system: &lt;/strong&gt;Each year, CDC requests abortion data from the central health agencies of 52 reporting areas (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City). The reporting areas provide this information voluntarily. For 2014, data were received from 49 reporting areas. For trend analysis, abortion data were evaluated from 48 areas that reported data every year during 2005-2014. Census and natality data, respectively, were used to calculate abortion rates (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years) and ratios (number of abortions per 1,000 live births).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;A total of 652,639 abortions were reported to CDC for 2014. Of these abortions, 98.4% were from the 48 reporting areas that provided data every year during 2005-2014. Among these 48 reporting areas, the abortion rate for 2014 was 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years, and the abortion ratio was 186 abortions per 1,000 live births. From 2013 to 2014, the total number and rate of reported abortions decreased 2%, and the ratio decreased 7%. From 2005 to 2014, the total number, rate, and ratio of reported abortions decreased 21%, 22%, and 21%, respectively. In 2014, all three measures reached their lowest level for the entire period of analysis (2005-2014). In 2014 and throughout the period of analysis, women in their 20s accounted for the majority of abortions and had the highest abortion rates; women in their 30s and older accounted for a much smaller percentage of abortions and had lower abortion rates. In 2014, women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years accounted for 32.2% and 26.7% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 21.3 and 18.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20-24 and 25-29 years, respectively. In contrast, women aged 30-34, 35-39, and ≥40 years accounted for 17.1%, 9.7%, and 3.6% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 11.9, 7.2, and 2.6 abortions per 1,000 women aged 30-34 years, 35-39 years, and ≥40 years, respectively. From 2005 to 2014, the abortion rate decreased among women aged 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, and 35-39 years by 27%, 16%, 12%, and 5%, respectively, but increased 4% among women aged ≥40 years. In 2014, adolescents aged &lt;15 and 15-19 years accounted for 0.3% and 10.4% of all reported abortions, respectively, and had abortion rates of 0.5 and 7.5 abortions per 1,000 adolescents aged &lt;15 and 15-19 years, respectively. From 2005 to 2014, the percentage of abortions accounted for by adolescents aged 15-19 years decreased 38%, and their abortion rate decreased 49%. These decreases were greater than the decreases for women in any older age group. In contrast to the percentage distribution of abortions and abo","PeriodicalId":48549,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Surveillance Summaries","volume":"66 24","pages":"1-48"},"PeriodicalIF":24.9,"publicationDate":"2017-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35276533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38
Racial/Ethnic Health Disparities Among Rural Adults - United States, 2012-2015. 2012-2015年美国农村成年人的种族/族裔健康差异
IF 24.9 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2017-11-17 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6623a1
Cara V James, Ramal Moonesinghe, Shondelle M Wilson-Frederick, Jeffrey E Hall, Ana Penman-Aguilar, Karen Bouye

Problem/condition: Rural communities often have worse health outcomes, have less access to care, and are less diverse than urban communities. Much of the research on rural health disparities examines disparities between rural and urban communities, with fewer studies on disparities within rural communities. This report provides an overview of racial/ethnic health disparities for selected indicators in rural areas of the United States.

Reporting period: 2012-2015.

Description of system: Self-reported data from the 2012-2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were pooled to evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in health, access to care, and health-related behaviors among rural residents in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Using the National Center for Health Statistics 2013 Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties to assess rurality, this analysis focused on adults living in noncore (rural) counties.

Results: Racial/ethnic minorities who lived in rural areas were younger (more often in the youngest age group) than non-Hispanic whites. Except for Asians and Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders (combined in the analysis), more racial/ethnic minorities (compared with non-Hispanic whites) reported their health as fair or poor, that they had obesity, and that they were unable to see a physician in the past 12 months because of cost. All racial/ethnic minority populations were less likely than non-Hispanic whites to report having a personal health care provider. Non-Hispanic whites had the highest estimated prevalence of binge drinking in the past 30 days.

Interpretation: Although persons in rural communities often have worse health outcomes and less access to health care than those in urban communities, rural racial/ethnic minority populations have substantial health, access to care, and lifestyle challenges that can be overlooked when considering aggregated population data. This study revealed difficulties among non-Hispanic whites as well, primarily related to health-related risk behaviors. Across each population, the challenges vary.

Public health action: Stratifying data by different demographics, using community health needs assessments, and adopting and implementing the National Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services Standards can help rural communities identify disparities and develop effective initiatives to eliminate them, which aligns with a Healthy People 2020 overarching goal: achieving health equity.

问题/状况:农村社区的健康状况往往较差,获得保健的机会较少,而且多样性不如城市社区。关于农村保健差距的研究大多考察了农村和城市社区之间的差距,对农村社区内部差距的研究较少。本报告概述了美国农村地区某些指标的种族/族裔健康差异。报告期:2012-2015年。系统描述:汇总2012-2015年行为风险因素监测系统的自我报告数据,以评估所有50个州和哥伦比亚特区农村居民在健康、获得护理和健康相关行为方面的种族/民族差异。使用国家卫生统计中心2013年城乡分类方案对乡村性进行评估,本分析侧重于生活在非核心(农村)县的成年人。结果:居住在农村地区的少数种族/民族比非西班牙裔白人更年轻(更常出现在最年轻的年龄组)。除了亚洲人、夏威夷原住民和其他太平洋岛民(在分析中合并)之外,更多的种族/少数民族(与非西班牙裔白人相比)报告他们的健康状况一般或较差,他们肥胖,并且他们在过去12个月里因为费用原因无法看医生。与非西班牙裔白人相比,所有种族/少数民族人口报告拥有个人医疗保健提供者的可能性都较低。在过去的30天里,非西班牙裔白人的酗酒率最高。解释:尽管农村社区的人往往比城市社区的人有更差的健康结果和更少的获得医疗保健的机会,但在考虑汇总人口数据时,农村种族/少数民族人口在健康、获得医疗保健和生活方式方面存在重大挑战,这些挑战可能被忽视。这项研究也揭示了非西班牙裔白人的困难,主要与健康相关的风险行为有关。不同人口面临的挑战各不相同。公共卫生行动:根据不同的人口统计数据进行分层,利用社区卫生需求评估,并通过和实施《国家文化和语言上适当的服务标准》,可帮助农村社区发现差距,并制定有效举措消除差距,这符合《健康人2020》的总体目标:实现卫生公平。
{"title":"Racial/Ethnic Health Disparities Among Rural Adults - United States, 2012-2015.","authors":"Cara V James, Ramal Moonesinghe, Shondelle M Wilson-Frederick, Jeffrey E Hall, Ana Penman-Aguilar, Karen Bouye","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6623a1","DOIUrl":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6623a1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Problem/condition: </strong>Rural communities often have worse health outcomes, have less access to care, and are less diverse than urban communities. Much of the research on rural health disparities examines disparities between rural and urban communities, with fewer studies on disparities within rural communities. This report provides an overview of racial/ethnic health disparities for selected indicators in rural areas of the United States.</p><p><strong>Reporting period: </strong>2012-2015.</p><p><strong>Description of system: </strong>Self-reported data from the 2012-2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were pooled to evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in health, access to care, and health-related behaviors among rural residents in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Using the National Center for Health Statistics 2013 Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties to assess rurality, this analysis focused on adults living in noncore (rural) counties.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Racial/ethnic minorities who lived in rural areas were younger (more often in the youngest age group) than non-Hispanic whites. Except for Asians and Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders (combined in the analysis), more racial/ethnic minorities (compared with non-Hispanic whites) reported their health as fair or poor, that they had obesity, and that they were unable to see a physician in the past 12 months because of cost. All racial/ethnic minority populations were less likely than non-Hispanic whites to report having a personal health care provider. Non-Hispanic whites had the highest estimated prevalence of binge drinking in the past 30 days.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Although persons in rural communities often have worse health outcomes and less access to health care than those in urban communities, rural racial/ethnic minority populations have substantial health, access to care, and lifestyle challenges that can be overlooked when considering aggregated population data. This study revealed difficulties among non-Hispanic whites as well, primarily related to health-related risk behaviors. Across each population, the challenges vary.</p><p><strong>Public health action: </strong>Stratifying data by different demographics, using community health needs assessments, and adopting and implementing the National Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services Standards can help rural communities identify disparities and develop effective initiatives to eliminate them, which aligns with a Healthy People 2020 overarching goal: achieving health equity.</p>","PeriodicalId":48549,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Surveillance Summaries","volume":"66 23","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":24.9,"publicationDate":"2017-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829953/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35612190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 198
Surveillance for Lyme Disease - United States, 2008-2015. 莱姆病监测-美国,2008-2015。
IF 24.9 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2017-11-10 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6622a1
Amy M Schwartz, Alison F Hinckley, Paul S Mead, Sarah A Hook, Kiersten J Kugeler
<p><strong>Problem/condition: </strong>Lyme disease is the most commonly reported vectorborne disease in the United States but is geographically focal. The majority of Lyme disease cases occur in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and upper Midwest regions. Lyme disease can cause varied clinical manifestations, including erythema migrans, arthritis, facial palsy, and carditis. Lyme disease occurs most commonly among children and older adults, with a slight predominance among males.</p><p><strong>Reporting period: </strong>2008-2015.</p><p><strong>Description of system: </strong>Lyme disease has been a nationally notifiable condition in the United States since 1991. Possible Lyme disease cases are reported to local and state health departments by clinicians and laboratories. Health department staff conduct case investigations to classify cases according to the national surveillance case definition. Those that qualify as confirmed or probable cases of Lyme disease are reported to CDC through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. States with an average annual incidence during this reporting period of ≥10 confirmed Lyme disease cases per 100,000 population were classified as high incidence. States that share a border with those states or that are located between areas of high incidence were classified as neighboring states. All other states were classified as low incidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During 2008-2015, a total of 275,589 cases of Lyme disease were reported to CDC (208,834 confirmed and 66,755 probable). Although most cases continue to be reported from states with high incidence in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and upper Midwest regions, case counts in most of these states have remained stable or decreased during the reporting period. In contrast, case counts have increased in states that neighbor those with high incidence. Overall, demographic characteristics associated with confirmed cases were similar to those described previously, with a slight predominance among males and a bimodal age distribution with peaks among young children and older adults. Yet, among the subset of cases reported from states with low incidence, infection occurred more commonly among females and older adults. In addition, probable cases occurred more commonly among females and with a higher modal age than confirmed cases.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Lyme disease continues to be the most commonly reported vectorborne disease in the United States. Although concentrated in historically high-incidence areas, the geographic distribution is expanding into neighboring states. The trend of stable to decreasing case counts in many states with high incidence could be a result of multiple factors, including actual stabilization of disease incidence or artifact due to modifications in reporting practices employed by some states to curtail the resource burden associated with Lyme disease surveillance.</p><p><strong>Public health action: </strong>
问题/状况:莱姆病是美国最常见的媒介传播疾病,但在地理上是局部的。大多数莱姆病病例发生在东北部、大西洋中部和中西部北部地区。莱姆病可引起多种临床表现,包括移行性红斑、关节炎、面瘫和心肌炎。莱姆病最常见于儿童和老年人,男性略占优势。报告期间:2008-2015年。系统描述:自1991年以来,莱姆病一直是美国的一种全国报告疾病。临床医生和实验室向地方和州卫生部门报告可能的莱姆病病例。卫生部门工作人员进行病例调查,根据国家监测病例定义对病例进行分类。那些符合莱姆病确诊或可能病例的病例将通过国家法定疾病监测系统报告给疾病预防控制中心。在本报告所述期间,每年平均发病率为每10万人确诊莱姆病病例≥10例的国家被列为高发国。与这些州接壤或位于高发病率地区之间的州被归类为邻国。所有其他州都被归为低发病率。结果:2008-2015年,共向CDC报告275,589例莱姆病,其中确诊病例208,834例,疑似病例66,755例。尽管报告的大多数病例继续来自东北部、大西洋中部和中西部上游地区的高发病率州,但在报告所述期间,这些州的大多数病例数保持稳定或有所下降。相比之下,在与高发州相邻的州,病例数有所增加。总体而言,与确诊病例相关的人口学特征与前面描述的相似,男性略有优势,年龄分布呈双峰分布,在幼儿和老年人中达到峰值。然而,在低发病率州报告的病例亚群中,感染更常见于女性和老年人。此外,与确诊病例相比,可能病例更常见于女性,且模态年龄较高。解释:莱姆病仍然是美国最常见的媒介传播疾病。虽然集中在历史上的高发地区,但地理分布正在扩大到邻近的州。在许多发病率高的州,病例数从稳定到减少的趋势可能是多种因素的结果,包括疾病发病率实际稳定,或由于一些州为减少与莱姆病监测相关的资源负担而修改报告做法而造成的人为影响。公共卫生行动:本报告强调了莱姆病在高发病率国家的持续公共卫生挑战,并表明它在以前很少发生病例的邻近国家出现。教育工作应据此指导,以促进预防、早期诊断和适当治疗。当莱姆病在邻国出现时,临床怀疑患者患有莱姆病应基于当地经验,而不是用于监测目的的发病率临界值。不仅在莱姆病高发州,而且在已知出现莱姆病的地区,应考虑对具有相容临床症状和潜在接触感染蜱虫史的患者进行莱姆病诊断。这些研究结果强调,目前需要定期实施个人预防措施(例如,使用驱蚊剂和检查和清除蜱虫),并制定其他有效的干预措施。
{"title":"Surveillance for Lyme Disease - United States, 2008-2015.","authors":"Amy M Schwartz,&nbsp;Alison F Hinckley,&nbsp;Paul S Mead,&nbsp;Sarah A Hook,&nbsp;Kiersten J Kugeler","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6622a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6622a1","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Problem/condition: &lt;/strong&gt;Lyme disease is the most commonly reported vectorborne disease in the United States but is geographically focal. The majority of Lyme disease cases occur in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and upper Midwest regions. Lyme disease can cause varied clinical manifestations, including erythema migrans, arthritis, facial palsy, and carditis. Lyme disease occurs most commonly among children and older adults, with a slight predominance among males.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reporting period: &lt;/strong&gt;2008-2015.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Description of system: &lt;/strong&gt;Lyme disease has been a nationally notifiable condition in the United States since 1991. Possible Lyme disease cases are reported to local and state health departments by clinicians and laboratories. Health department staff conduct case investigations to classify cases according to the national surveillance case definition. Those that qualify as confirmed or probable cases of Lyme disease are reported to CDC through the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System. States with an average annual incidence during this reporting period of ≥10 confirmed Lyme disease cases per 100,000 population were classified as high incidence. States that share a border with those states or that are located between areas of high incidence were classified as neighboring states. All other states were classified as low incidence.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;During 2008-2015, a total of 275,589 cases of Lyme disease were reported to CDC (208,834 confirmed and 66,755 probable). Although most cases continue to be reported from states with high incidence in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic, and upper Midwest regions, case counts in most of these states have remained stable or decreased during the reporting period. In contrast, case counts have increased in states that neighbor those with high incidence. Overall, demographic characteristics associated with confirmed cases were similar to those described previously, with a slight predominance among males and a bimodal age distribution with peaks among young children and older adults. Yet, among the subset of cases reported from states with low incidence, infection occurred more commonly among females and older adults. In addition, probable cases occurred more commonly among females and with a higher modal age than confirmed cases.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Interpretation: &lt;/strong&gt;Lyme disease continues to be the most commonly reported vectorborne disease in the United States. Although concentrated in historically high-incidence areas, the geographic distribution is expanding into neighboring states. The trend of stable to decreasing case counts in many states with high incidence could be a result of multiple factors, including actual stabilization of disease incidence or artifact due to modifications in reporting practices employed by some states to curtail the resource burden associated with Lyme disease surveillance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Public health action: &lt;/strong&gt;","PeriodicalId":48549,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Surveillance Summaries","volume":"66 22","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":24.9,"publicationDate":"2017-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829628/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10266148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Occupational Exposure to Vapor-Gas, Dust, and Fumes in a Cohort of Rural Adults in Iowa Compared with a Cohort of Urban Adults. 爱荷华州农村成年人与城市成年人职业暴露于蒸汽气体、粉尘和烟雾的比较
IF 24.9 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2017-11-03 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6621a1
Brent C Doney, Paul K Henneberger, Michael J Humann, Xiaoming Liang, Kevin M Kelly, Jean M Cox-Ganser

Problem/condition: Many rural residents work in the field of agriculture; however, employment in nonagricultural jobs also is common. Because previous studies in rural communities often have focused on agricultural workers, much less is known about the occupational exposures in other types of jobs in rural settings. Characterizing airborne occupational exposures that can contribute to respiratory diseases is important so that differences between rural and urban working populations can be assessed.

Reporting period: 1994-2011.

Description of system: This investigation used data from the baseline questionnaire completed by adult rural residents participating in the Keokuk County Rural Health Study (KCRHS). The distribution of jobs and occupational exposures to vapor-gas, dust, and fumes (VGDF) among all participants was analyzed and stratified by farming status (current, former, and never) then compared with a cohort of urban workers from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Occupational exposure in the last job was assessed with a job-exposure matrix (JEM) developed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The COPD JEM assesses VGDF exposure at levels of none or low, medium, and high.

Results: The 1,699 KCRHS (rural) participants were more likely to have medium or high occupational VGDF exposure (43.2%) at their last job than their urban MESA counterparts (15.0% of 3,667 participants). One fifth (20.8%) of the rural participants currently farmed, 43.1% were former farmers, and approximately one third (36.1%) had never farmed. These three farming groups differed in VGDF exposure at the last job, with the prevalence of medium or high exposure at 80.2% for current farmers, 38.7% for former farmers, and 27.4% for never farmers, and all three percentages were higher than the 15.0% medium or high level of VGDF exposure for urban workers.

Interpretation: Rural workers, including those who had never farmed, were more likely to experience occupational VGDF exposure than urban workers.

Public health action: The occupational exposures of rural adults assessed using the COPD JEM will be used to investigate their potential association with obstructive respiratory health problems (e.g., airflow limitation and chronic bronchitis). This assessment might highlight occupations in need of preventive interventions.

问题/状况:许多农村居民在农业领域工作;然而,非农业工作的就业也很普遍。由于以前在农村社区的研究往往集中在农业工人身上,因此对农村环境中其他类型工作的职业暴露知之甚少。确定可能导致呼吸系统疾病的空气中职业暴露的特征非常重要,以便能够评估农村和城市工作人口之间的差异。报告期间:1994-2011年。系统描述:本调查使用的数据来自参与Keokuk县农村健康研究(KCRHS)的成年农村居民完成的基线问卷。分析了所有参与者的工作分布和职业暴露于蒸汽气体、粉尘和烟雾(VGDF)的情况,并根据农业状况(目前、以前和从未)进行分层,然后与来自动脉粥样硬化多种族研究(MESA)的城市工人队列进行比较。采用针对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)开发的工作暴露矩阵(JEM)评估上一份工作的职业暴露。COPD JEM评估无VGDF或低、中、高水平的VGDF暴露。结果:1,699名KCRHS(农村)参与者在上一份工作中更有可能有中等或高度的职业VGDF暴露(43.2%),而城市MESA参与者(3,667名参与者中的15.0%)。五分之一(20.8%)的农村参与者目前务农,43.1%曾经务农,约三分之一(36.1%)从未务农。这三个农业群体在最后一份工作中的VGDF暴露程度不同,当前农民中或高暴露率为80.2%,以前农民为38.7%,从未农民为27.4%,这三个百分比均高于城市工人中或高水平VGDF暴露率15.0%。解释:农村工人,包括那些从未务农的,比城市工人更有可能经历职业性VGDF暴露。公共卫生行动:使用COPD JEM评估农村成年人的职业暴露,将用于调查其与阻塞性呼吸系统健康问题(如气流受限和慢性支气管炎)的潜在关联。这种评估可能会突出需要预防性干预的职业。
{"title":"Occupational Exposure to Vapor-Gas, Dust, and Fumes in a Cohort of Rural Adults in Iowa Compared with a Cohort of Urban Adults.","authors":"Brent C Doney,&nbsp;Paul K Henneberger,&nbsp;Michael J Humann,&nbsp;Xiaoming Liang,&nbsp;Kevin M Kelly,&nbsp;Jean M Cox-Ganser","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6621a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6621a1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Problem/condition: </strong>Many rural residents work in the field of agriculture; however, employment in nonagricultural jobs also is common. Because previous studies in rural communities often have focused on agricultural workers, much less is known about the occupational exposures in other types of jobs in rural settings. Characterizing airborne occupational exposures that can contribute to respiratory diseases is important so that differences between rural and urban working populations can be assessed.</p><p><strong>Reporting period: </strong>1994-2011.</p><p><strong>Description of system: </strong>This investigation used data from the baseline questionnaire completed by adult rural residents participating in the Keokuk County Rural Health Study (KCRHS). The distribution of jobs and occupational exposures to vapor-gas, dust, and fumes (VGDF) among all participants was analyzed and stratified by farming status (current, former, and never) then compared with a cohort of urban workers from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Occupational exposure in the last job was assessed with a job-exposure matrix (JEM) developed for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The COPD JEM assesses VGDF exposure at levels of none or low, medium, and high.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 1,699 KCRHS (rural) participants were more likely to have medium or high occupational VGDF exposure (43.2%) at their last job than their urban MESA counterparts (15.0% of 3,667 participants). One fifth (20.8%) of the rural participants currently farmed, 43.1% were former farmers, and approximately one third (36.1%) had never farmed. These three farming groups differed in VGDF exposure at the last job, with the prevalence of medium or high exposure at 80.2% for current farmers, 38.7% for former farmers, and 27.4% for never farmers, and all three percentages were higher than the 15.0% medium or high level of VGDF exposure for urban workers.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Rural workers, including those who had never farmed, were more likely to experience occupational VGDF exposure than urban workers.</p><p><strong>Public health action: </strong>The occupational exposures of rural adults assessed using the COPD JEM will be used to investigate their potential association with obstructive respiratory health problems (e.g., airflow limitation and chronic bronchitis). This assessment might highlight occupations in need of preventive interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48549,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Surveillance Summaries","volume":"66 21","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":24.9,"publicationDate":"2017-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829718/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35565904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13
Receipt of Selected Preventive Health Services for Women and Men of Reproductive Age - United States, 2011-2013. 2011-2013 年美国育龄妇女和男子接受特定预防保健服务的情况。
IF 37.3 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2017-10-27 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6620a1
Karen Pazol, Cheryl L Robbins, Lindsey I Black, Katherine A Ahrens, Kimberly Daniels, Anjani Chandra, Anjel Vahratian, Lorrie E Gavin
<p><strong>Problem/condition: </strong>Receipt of key preventive health services among women and men of reproductive age (i.e., 15-44 years) can help them achieve their desired number and spacing of healthy children and improve their overall health. The 2014 publication Providing Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs (QFP) establishes standards for providing a core set of preventive services to promote these goals. These services include contraceptive care for persons seeking to prevent or delay pregnancy, pregnancy testing and counseling, basic infertility services for those seeking to achieve pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease (STD) services, and other preconception care and related preventive health services. QFP describes how to provide these services and recommends using family planning and other primary care visits to screen for and offer the full range of these services. This report presents baseline estimates of the use of these preventive services before the publication of QFP that can be used to monitor progress toward improving the quality of preventive care received by women and men of reproductive age.</p><p><strong>Period covered: </strong>2011-2013.</p><p><strong>Description of the system: </strong>Three surveillance systems were used to document receipt of preventive health services among women and men of reproductive age as recommended in QFP. The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collects data on factors that influence reproductive health in the United States since 1973, with a focus on fertility, sexual activity, contraceptive use, reproductive health care, family formation, child care, and related topics. NSFG uses a stratified, multistage probability sample to produce nationally representative estimates for the U.S. household population of women and men aged 15-44 years. This report uses data from the 2011-2013 NSFG. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) is an ongoing, state- and population-based surveillance system designed to monitor selected maternal behaviors and experiences that occur before, during, and shortly after pregnancy among women who deliver live-born infants in the United States. Annual PRAMS data sets are created and used to produce statewide estimates of preconception and perinatal health behaviors and experiences. This report uses PRAMS data for 2011-2012 from 11 states (Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia). The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a nationally representative survey of noninstitutionalized civilians in the United States. NHIS collects data on a broad range of health topics, including the prevalence, distribution, and effects of illness and disability and the services rendered for or because of such conditions. Households are identified through a multistage probability household sampling design, and estimates are produced
在所有 21-44 岁的女性中,81.6%的人在过去 3 年中接受了巴氏涂片检查。接受某些预防服务的情况因年龄和种族/民族而异。在最近生育过活产婴儿的女性中,在最近一次怀孕前与专业医护人员讨论过如何改善健康状况的女性比例随着年龄的增长而增加(范围:19 岁以下和 20-24 岁女性分别为 25.9% 和 25.2%,25-34 岁和≥35 岁女性分别为 35.9% 和 37.8%)。在最近有过一次活产的女性中,非西班牙裔白人(白人)(35.2%)与非西班牙裔黑人(黑人)(30.0%)和西班牙裔女性(26.0%)相比,在最近一次怀孕前与医护人员讨论过如何改善健康状况的比例更高。相反,在大多数性传播疾病筛查评估服务中,黑人妇女和男子的检测率最高,而白人妇女和男子的检测率最低。在不同的家庭收入类别和医疗保险连续性类别中,接受 QFP 建议的许多预防服务的人数都在持续增加。在最高家庭收入类别(超过联邦贫困线 [FPL]的 400%)的妇女中,以及在有以下各项保险的妇女中,接受服务的比例最高:为有意外怀孕风险的妇女提供避孕服务;为帮助怀孕提供建议以外的医疗服务;接种疫苗(乙型肝炎和人类乳头瘤病毒 [HPV],曾经接种;破伤风,过去 10 年;流感,过去一年);与医护人员讨论如何在怀孕前改善健康状况并服用含叶酸的维生素;血压和糖尿病筛查;肥胖者在过去一年中与医护人员讨论过饮食问题;目前吸烟者在过去一年中与医护人员讨论过吸烟问题;过去 3 年中进行过巴氏试验;以及过去 2 年中进行过乳房 X 光检查。解读:在 2014 年之前,许多育龄妇女和男性并未接受 QFP 为其推荐的几项预防服务。虽然不同年龄和种族/人种之间存在差异,但在推荐的一系列服务中,家庭收入较低、医疗保险较不稳定的女性和男性接受服务的比例一直较低:本报告中关于 2011-2013 年期间育龄妇女和男性接受预防服务的基线信息,可用于通过制定研究重点、为决策者提供信息和公共卫生实践,有针对性地改善推荐服务的使用情况。医疗保健管理者和从业人员可以利用这些信息来确定最需要预防服务的亚人群,并就资源分配做出明智的决策。公共卫生研究人员可以利用这些信息来指导对服务使用的决定因素和可能增加预防服务使用的因素的研究。政策制定者可以利用这些信息来评估政策变化的影响,并评估有效计划、研究和监控育龄妇女和男性使用预防性保健服务的资源需求。
{"title":"Receipt of Selected Preventive Health Services for Women and Men of Reproductive Age - United States, 2011-2013.","authors":"Karen Pazol, Cheryl L Robbins, Lindsey I Black, Katherine A Ahrens, Kimberly Daniels, Anjani Chandra, Anjel Vahratian, Lorrie E Gavin","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6620a1","DOIUrl":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6620a1","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Problem/condition: &lt;/strong&gt;Receipt of key preventive health services among women and men of reproductive age (i.e., 15-44 years) can help them achieve their desired number and spacing of healthy children and improve their overall health. The 2014 publication Providing Quality Family Planning Services: Recommendations of CDC and the U.S. Office of Population Affairs (QFP) establishes standards for providing a core set of preventive services to promote these goals. These services include contraceptive care for persons seeking to prevent or delay pregnancy, pregnancy testing and counseling, basic infertility services for those seeking to achieve pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease (STD) services, and other preconception care and related preventive health services. QFP describes how to provide these services and recommends using family planning and other primary care visits to screen for and offer the full range of these services. This report presents baseline estimates of the use of these preventive services before the publication of QFP that can be used to monitor progress toward improving the quality of preventive care received by women and men of reproductive age.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Period covered: &lt;/strong&gt;2011-2013.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Description of the system: &lt;/strong&gt;Three surveillance systems were used to document receipt of preventive health services among women and men of reproductive age as recommended in QFP. The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) collects data on factors that influence reproductive health in the United States since 1973, with a focus on fertility, sexual activity, contraceptive use, reproductive health care, family formation, child care, and related topics. NSFG uses a stratified, multistage probability sample to produce nationally representative estimates for the U.S. household population of women and men aged 15-44 years. This report uses data from the 2011-2013 NSFG. The Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) is an ongoing, state- and population-based surveillance system designed to monitor selected maternal behaviors and experiences that occur before, during, and shortly after pregnancy among women who deliver live-born infants in the United States. Annual PRAMS data sets are created and used to produce statewide estimates of preconception and perinatal health behaviors and experiences. This report uses PRAMS data for 2011-2012 from 11 states (Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and West Virginia). The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is a nationally representative survey of noninstitutionalized civilians in the United States. NHIS collects data on a broad range of health topics, including the prevalence, distribution, and effects of illness and disability and the services rendered for or because of such conditions. Households are identified through a multistage probability household sampling design, and estimates are produced ","PeriodicalId":48549,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Surveillance Summaries","volume":"66 20","pages":"1-31"},"PeriodicalIF":37.3,"publicationDate":"2017-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5879726/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35643327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Illicit Drug Use, Illicit Drug Use Disorders, and Drug Overdose Deaths in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas - United States. 美国大都市和非大都市地区的非法药物使用、非法药物使用失调和药物过量死亡。
IF 24.9 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2017-10-20 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6619a1
Karin A Mack, Christopher M Jones, Michael F Ballesteros
<p><strong>Problem/condition: </strong>Drug overdoses are a leading cause of injury death in the United States, resulting in approximately 52,000 deaths in 2015. Understanding differences in illicit drug use, illicit drug use disorders, and overall drug overdose deaths in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is important for informing public health programs, interventions, and policies.</p><p><strong>Reporting period: </strong>Illicit drug use and drug use disorders during 2003-2014, and drug overdose deaths during 1999-2015.</p><p><strong>Description of data: </strong>The National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) collects information through face-to-face household interviews about the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among the U.S. noninstitutionalized civilian population aged ≥12 years. Respondents include residents of households and noninstitutional group quarters (e.g., shelters, rooming houses, dormitories, migratory workers' camps, and halfway houses) and civilians living on military bases. NSDUH variables include sex, age, race/ethnicity, residence (metropolitan/nonmetropolitan), annual household income, self-reported drug use, and drug use disorders. National Vital Statistics System Mortality (NVSS-M) data for U.S. residents include information from death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Cases were selected with an underlying cause of death based on the ICD-10 codes for drug overdoses (X40-X44, X60-X64, X85, and Y10-Y14). NVSS-M variables include decedent characteristics (sex, age, and race/ethnicity) and information on intent (unintentional, suicide, homicide, or undetermined), location of death (medical facility, in a home, or other [including nursing homes, hospices, unknown, and other locations]) and county of residence (metropolitan/nonmetropolitan). Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan status is assigned independently in each data system. NSDUH uses a three-category system: Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) of ≥1 million persons; CBSA of <1 million persons; and not a CBSA, which for simplicity were labeled large metropolitan, small metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan. Deaths from NVSS-M are categorized by the county of residence of the decedent using CDC's National Center for Health Statistics 2013 Urban-Rural Classification Scheme, collapsed into two categories (metropolitan and nonmetropolitan).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Although both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas experienced significant increases from 2003-2005 to 2012-2014 in self-reported past-month use of illicit drugs, the prevalence was highest for the large metropolitan areas compared with small metropolitan or nonmetropolitan areas throughout the study period. Notably, past-month use of illicit drugs declined over the study period for the youngest respondents (aged 12-17 years). The prevalence of past-year illicit drug use disorders among persons using illicit drugs in the past year varied by metropolitan/nonmetropoli
问题/状况:药物过量是美国伤害死亡的主要原因,2015年造成约5.2万人死亡。了解大都市和非大都市地区在非法药物使用、非法药物使用障碍和总体药物过量死亡方面的差异,对公共卫生计划、干预措施和政策的通报非常重要。报告期间:2003-2014年期间非法药物使用和药物使用障碍,1999-2015年期间药物过量死亡。数据描述:全国药物使用和健康调查(NSDUH)通过面对面的家庭访谈收集有关美国非机构平民中年龄≥12岁的非法药物、酒精和烟草使用情况的信息。受访者包括家庭居民和非机构群体宿舍(如庇护所、宿舍、宿舍、移徙工人营地和中途之家)以及居住在军事基地的平民。NSDUH变量包括性别、年龄、种族/民族、居住地(大都市/非大都市)、家庭年收入、自我报告的药物使用情况和药物使用障碍。美国居民的国家生命统计系统死亡率(NVSS-M)数据包括来自50个州和哥伦比亚特区的死亡证明信息。根据ICD-10药物过量代码(X40-X44、X60-X64、X85和Y10-Y14)选择具有潜在死亡原因的病例。NVSS-M变量包括死者特征(性别、年龄和种族/民族)和意图(无意、自杀、他杀或未确定)、死亡地点(医疗设施、家中或其他[包括养老院、临终关怀院、未知地点和其他地点])和居住县(大都市/非大都市)的信息。城域/非城域状态在每个数据系统中独立分配。NSDUH采用三类系统:核心统计区(CBSA)人口≥100万;结果CBSA:尽管从2003-2005年到2012-2014年,大都市和非大都市地区的自我报告的过去一个月的非法药物使用都显着增加,但在整个研究期间,与小大都市或非大都市地区相比,大城市地区的患病率最高。值得注意的是,在研究期间,最年轻的答复者(12-17岁)过去一个月使用非法药物的情况有所下降。过去一年非法药物使用者中非法药物使用障碍的流行率因大都市/非大都市状况而异,并随时间而变化。2003-2014年期间,在大都市和非大都市地区,过去一年的非法药物使用障碍患病率均有所下降。2015年,大都市区药物过量死亡人数是非大都市区的六倍(大都市区:45,059人;nonmetropolitan: 7345)。1999年,大都市地区的药物过量死亡率(每10万人中6.4人)高于非大都市地区(每10万人中4.0人),但在2004年两者趋于一致,到2015年,非大都市地区的药物过量死亡率(17.0人)略高于大都市地区(16.2人)。解释:药物使用和随后的过量使用仍然是大都市/非大都市地区一个关键和复杂的公共卫生挑战。2012-2014年期间,青年非法药物使用下降,农村地区非法药物使用障碍患病率下降,这是令人鼓舞的迹象。然而,农村地区吸毒过量死亡率的上升,超过了城市地区,这令人关切。公共卫生行动:了解大都市和非大都市地区在药物使用、药物使用障碍和药物过量死亡方面的差异可以帮助公共卫生专业人员识别、监测和优先考虑应对措施。考虑到人们居住的地方和他们死于过量的地方,可以加强具体的过量预防干预措施,如纳洛酮给药或抢救呼吸培训。CDC阿片类药物治疗慢性疼痛指南(Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC阿片类药物治疗慢性疼痛指南-美国,2016)。MMWR建议Rep 2016;66[No. 6]RR-1]),促进更好地获得美沙酮、丁丙诺啡或纳曲酮等药物辅助治疗,可以使阿片类药物使用障碍率高的社区受益。
{"title":"Illicit Drug Use, Illicit Drug Use Disorders, and Drug Overdose Deaths in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Areas - United States.","authors":"Karin A Mack, Christopher M Jones, Michael F Ballesteros","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6619a1","DOIUrl":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6619a1","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Problem/condition: &lt;/strong&gt;Drug overdoses are a leading cause of injury death in the United States, resulting in approximately 52,000 deaths in 2015. Understanding differences in illicit drug use, illicit drug use disorders, and overall drug overdose deaths in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas is important for informing public health programs, interventions, and policies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reporting period: &lt;/strong&gt;Illicit drug use and drug use disorders during 2003-2014, and drug overdose deaths during 1999-2015.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Description of data: &lt;/strong&gt;The National Survey of Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) collects information through face-to-face household interviews about the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco among the U.S. noninstitutionalized civilian population aged ≥12 years. Respondents include residents of households and noninstitutional group quarters (e.g., shelters, rooming houses, dormitories, migratory workers' camps, and halfway houses) and civilians living on military bases. NSDUH variables include sex, age, race/ethnicity, residence (metropolitan/nonmetropolitan), annual household income, self-reported drug use, and drug use disorders. National Vital Statistics System Mortality (NVSS-M) data for U.S. residents include information from death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Cases were selected with an underlying cause of death based on the ICD-10 codes for drug overdoses (X40-X44, X60-X64, X85, and Y10-Y14). NVSS-M variables include decedent characteristics (sex, age, and race/ethnicity) and information on intent (unintentional, suicide, homicide, or undetermined), location of death (medical facility, in a home, or other [including nursing homes, hospices, unknown, and other locations]) and county of residence (metropolitan/nonmetropolitan). Metropolitan/nonmetropolitan status is assigned independently in each data system. NSDUH uses a three-category system: Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) of ≥1 million persons; CBSA of &lt;1 million persons; and not a CBSA, which for simplicity were labeled large metropolitan, small metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan. Deaths from NVSS-M are categorized by the county of residence of the decedent using CDC's National Center for Health Statistics 2013 Urban-Rural Classification Scheme, collapsed into two categories (metropolitan and nonmetropolitan).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Although both metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas experienced significant increases from 2003-2005 to 2012-2014 in self-reported past-month use of illicit drugs, the prevalence was highest for the large metropolitan areas compared with small metropolitan or nonmetropolitan areas throughout the study period. Notably, past-month use of illicit drugs declined over the study period for the youngest respondents (aged 12-17 years). The prevalence of past-year illicit drug use disorders among persons using illicit drugs in the past year varied by metropolitan/nonmetropoli","PeriodicalId":48549,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Surveillance Summaries","volume":"66 19","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":24.9,"publicationDate":"2017-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.15585/mmwr.ss6619a1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35530002","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 189
Suicide Trends Among and Within Urbanization Levels by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Age Group, and Mechanism of Death - United States, 2001-2015. 2001-2015 年美国按性别、种族/族裔、年龄组和死亡机制分列的城市化水平之间和城市化水平之内的自杀趋势。
IF 24.9 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2017-10-06 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6618a1
Asha Z Ivey-Stephenson, Alex E Crosby, Shane P D Jack, Tadesse Haileyesus, Marcie-Jo Kresnow-Sedacca
<p><strong>Problem/condition: </strong>Suicide is a public health problem and one of the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States. Substantial geographic variations in suicide rates exist, with suicides in rural areas occurring at much higher rates than those occurring in more urban areas. Understanding demographic trends and mechanisms of death among and within urbanization levels is important to developing and targeting future prevention efforts.</p><p><strong>Reporting period: </strong>2001-2015.</p><p><strong>Description of system: </strong>Mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) include demographic, geographic, and cause of death information derived from death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. NVSS was used to identify suicide deaths, defined by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) underlying cause of death codes X60-X84, Y87.0, and U03. This report examines annual county level trends in suicide rates during 2001-2015 among and within urbanization levels by select demographics and mechanisms of death. Counties were collapsed into three urbanization levels using the 2006 National Center for Health Statistics classification scheme.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Suicide rates increased across the three urbanization levels, with higher rates in nonmetropolitan/rural counties than in medium/small or large metropolitan counties. Each urbanization level experienced substantial annual rate changes at different times during the study period. Across urbanization levels, suicide rates were consistently highest for men and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Natives compared with rates for women and other racial/ethnic groups; however, rates were highest for non-Hispanic whites in more metropolitan counties. Trends indicate that suicide rates for non-Hispanic blacks were lowest in nonmetropolitan/rural counties and highest in more urban counties. Increases in suicide rates occurred for all age groups across urbanization levels, with the highest rates for persons aged 35-64 years. For mechanism of death, greater increases in rates of suicide by firearms and hanging/suffocation occurred across all urbanization levels; rates of suicide by firearms in nonmetropolitan/rural counties were almost two times that of rates in larger metropolitan counties.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Suicide rates in nonmetropolitan/rural counties are consistently higher than suicide rates in metropolitan counties. These trends also are observed by sex, race/ethnicity, age group, and mechanism of death.</p><p><strong>Public health action: </strong>Interventions to prevent suicides should be ongoing, particularly in rural areas. Comprehensive suicide prevention efforts might include leveraging protective factors and providing innovative prevention strategies that increase access to health care and mental health care in rural communities. In addition, distribution of socioecon
问题/条件:自杀是一个公共卫生问题,也是美国十大死因之一。自杀率存在很大的地域差异,农村地区的自杀率远远高于城市地区。了解城市化水平之间和内部的人口趋势和死亡机制,对于制定和有针对性地开展未来的预防工作非常重要:来自国家生命统计系统(NVSS)的死亡率数据包括人口、地理和死因信息,这些信息来自 50 个州和哥伦比亚特区的死亡证明。国家人口动态统计系统用于识别自杀死亡,自杀死亡的基本死因代码为 X60-X84、Y87.0 和 U03,死因代码为《国际疾病分类》第十版(ICD-10)。本报告按选定的人口统计学和死亡机制研究了 2001-2015 年期间城市化水平之间和内部县级自杀率的年度趋势。根据 2006 年国家卫生统计中心的分类方案,各县被划分为三个城市化水平:三个城市化水平的自杀率均有所上升,非大都市/农村县的自杀率高于中等/小大都市或大都市县。在研究期间的不同时期,每个城市化水平的年自杀率都有很大变化。在各个城市化水平中,男性和非西班牙裔美国印第安人/阿拉斯加原住民的自杀率始终高于女性和其他种族/民族群体;然而,在大都市较多的县中,非西班牙裔白人的自杀率最高。趋势表明,非西班牙裔黑人的自杀率在非大都市/农村县最低,而在城市较多的县最高。在不同城市化水平的所有年龄组中,自杀率都有所上升,其中 35-64 岁年龄组的自杀率最高。就死亡机制而言,在所有城市化水平中,持枪自杀率和绞刑/窒息自杀率的增幅都较大;非大都市/农村县的持枪自杀率几乎是大都市较大县的两倍:非大都市/农村地区的自杀率一直高于大都市地区。从性别、种族/民族、年龄组和死亡原因等方面也可以观察到这些趋势:预防自杀的干预措施应持续进行,尤其是在农村地区。全面的自杀预防工作可能包括利用保护因素和提供创新的预防策略,以增加农村社区获得医疗保健和心理保健的机会。此外,社会经济因素在不同社区的分布也不尽相同,需要在预防自杀的背景下更好地了解这些因素。
{"title":"Suicide Trends Among and Within Urbanization Levels by Sex, Race/Ethnicity, Age Group, and Mechanism of Death - United States, 2001-2015.","authors":"Asha Z Ivey-Stephenson, Alex E Crosby, Shane P D Jack, Tadesse Haileyesus, Marcie-Jo Kresnow-Sedacca","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6618a1","DOIUrl":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6618a1","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Problem/condition: &lt;/strong&gt;Suicide is a public health problem and one of the top 10 leading causes of death in the United States. Substantial geographic variations in suicide rates exist, with suicides in rural areas occurring at much higher rates than those occurring in more urban areas. Understanding demographic trends and mechanisms of death among and within urbanization levels is important to developing and targeting future prevention efforts.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reporting period: &lt;/strong&gt;2001-2015.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Description of system: &lt;/strong&gt;Mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) include demographic, geographic, and cause of death information derived from death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. NVSS was used to identify suicide deaths, defined by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) underlying cause of death codes X60-X84, Y87.0, and U03. This report examines annual county level trends in suicide rates during 2001-2015 among and within urbanization levels by select demographics and mechanisms of death. Counties were collapsed into three urbanization levels using the 2006 National Center for Health Statistics classification scheme.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Suicide rates increased across the three urbanization levels, with higher rates in nonmetropolitan/rural counties than in medium/small or large metropolitan counties. Each urbanization level experienced substantial annual rate changes at different times during the study period. Across urbanization levels, suicide rates were consistently highest for men and non-Hispanic American Indian/Alaska Natives compared with rates for women and other racial/ethnic groups; however, rates were highest for non-Hispanic whites in more metropolitan counties. Trends indicate that suicide rates for non-Hispanic blacks were lowest in nonmetropolitan/rural counties and highest in more urban counties. Increases in suicide rates occurred for all age groups across urbanization levels, with the highest rates for persons aged 35-64 years. For mechanism of death, greater increases in rates of suicide by firearms and hanging/suffocation occurred across all urbanization levels; rates of suicide by firearms in nonmetropolitan/rural counties were almost two times that of rates in larger metropolitan counties.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Interpretation: &lt;/strong&gt;Suicide rates in nonmetropolitan/rural counties are consistently higher than suicide rates in metropolitan counties. These trends also are observed by sex, race/ethnicity, age group, and mechanism of death.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Public health action: &lt;/strong&gt;Interventions to prevent suicides should be ongoing, particularly in rural areas. Comprehensive suicide prevention efforts might include leveraging protective factors and providing innovative prevention strategies that increase access to health care and mental health care in rural communities. In addition, distribution of socioecon","PeriodicalId":48549,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Surveillance Summaries","volume":"66 18","pages":"1-16"},"PeriodicalIF":24.9,"publicationDate":"2017-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829833/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35574865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Rural and Urban Differences in Passenger-Vehicle-Occupant Deaths and Seat Belt Use Among Adults - United States, 2014. 2014年美国城乡乘客-车辆乘员死亡和安全带使用的差异。
IF 24.9 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2017-09-22 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6617a1
Laurie F Beck, Jonathan Downs, Mark R Stevens, Erin K Sauber-Schatz
<p><strong>Problem/condition: </strong>Motor-vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States. Compared with urban residents, rural residents are at an increased risk for death from crashes and are less likely to wear seat belts. These differences have not been well described by levels of rurality.</p><p><strong>Reporting period: </strong>2014.</p><p><strong>Description of systems: </strong>Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) were used to identify passenger-vehicle-occupant deaths from motor-vehicle crashes and estimate the prevalence of seat belt use. FARS, a census of U.S. motor-vehicle crashes involving one or more deaths, was used to identify passenger-vehicle-occupant deaths among adults aged ≥18 years. Passenger-vehicle occupants were defined as persons driving or riding in passenger cars, light trucks, vans, or sport utility vehicles. Death rates per 100,000 population, age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population and the proportion of occupants who were unrestrained at the time of the fatal crash, were calculated. BRFSS, an annual, state-based, random-digit-dialed telephone survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population aged ≥18 years, was used to estimate prevalence of seat belt use. FARS and BRFSS data were analyzed by a six-level rural-urban designation, based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2013 rural-urban continuum codes, and stratified by census region and type of state seat belt enforcement law (primary or secondary).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Within each census region, age-adjusted passenger-vehicle-occupant death rates per 100,000 population increased with increasing rurality, from the most urban to the most rural counties: South, 6.8 to 29.2; Midwest, 5.3 to 25.8; West, 3.9 to 40.0; and Northeast, 3.5 to 10.8. (For the Northeast, data for the most rural counties were not reported because of suppression criteria; comparison is for the most urban to the second-most rural counties.) Similarly, the proportion of occupants who were unrestrained at the time of the fatal crash increased as rurality increased. Self-reported seat belt use in the United States decreased with increasing rurality, ranging from 88.8% in the most urban counties to 74.7% in the most rural counties. Similar differences in age-adjusted death rates and seat belt use were observed in states with primary and secondary seat belt enforcement laws.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Rurality was associated with higher age-adjusted passenger-vehicle-occupant death rates, a higher proportion of unrestrained passenger-vehicle-occupant deaths, and lower seat belt use among adults in all census regions and regardless of state seat belt enforcement type.</p><p><strong>Public health actions: </strong>Seat belt use decreases and age-adjusted passenger-vehicle-occupant death rates increase with increasing levels of rurality. Improving seat belt use
问题/状况:在美国,车祸是导致死亡的主要原因。与城市居民相比,农村居民死于车祸的风险更高,而且不太可能系安全带。这些差异并没有很好地描述为农村水平。报告期间:2014年。系统描述:使用来自死亡分析报告系统(FARS)和行为风险因素监测系统(BRFSS)的数据来确定机动车碰撞造成的乘客-车辆-乘员死亡人数,并估计安全带使用的流行程度。FARS是一项涉及一人或多人死亡的美国机动车碰撞普查,用于确定年龄≥18岁的成人中乘用车乘客的死亡情况。乘用车乘员被定义为驾驶或乘坐乘用车、轻型卡车、货车或运动型多用途车的人。计算了每10万人的死亡率,年龄调整到2000年美国标准人口,以及致命车祸发生时不受约束的乘客比例。BRFSS是一项年度、基于州、随机数字拨号的电话调查,调查对象为年龄≥18岁的非收容美国平民,用于估计安全带使用的流行程度。FARS和BRFSS数据根据美国农业部2013年农村-城市连续代码,按人口普查地区和州安全带执法类型(主要或次要)进行分层,通过六个级别的农村-城市指定进行分析。结果:在每个人口普查区域内,每10万人口中年龄调整后的乘用车死亡率随着农村人口的增加而增加,从最城市的县到最农村的县:南部,6.8到29.2;中西部地区,5.3 - 25.8;西部:3.9 - 40.0;东北部,3.5到10.8。(在东北,由于压制标准,大多数农村县的数据没有报告;比较的是城市最多的县和农村第二多的县。)同样,随着农村人口的增加,发生致命车祸时不受约束的乘客比例也在增加。在美国,自我报告的安全带使用率随着农村地区的增加而下降,从大多数城市县的88.8%到大多数农村县的74.7%不等。在有一级和二级安全带执法法的州,也观察到年龄调整死亡率和安全带使用方面的类似差异。解释:在所有人口普查地区,无论州系安全带的实施类型如何,农村地区与较高的年龄调整后的乘客-车辆乘员死亡率、较高的无约束乘客-车辆乘员死亡率以及较低的安全带使用率有关。公共卫生行动:随着农村水平的提高,安全带的使用减少,按年龄调整的乘用车人员死亡率上升。在美国,改善安全带的使用仍然是减少与车祸有关的死亡的一项关键战略,特别是在安全带使用率较低且年龄调整死亡率高于城市地区的农村地区。各州和社区可考虑采用循证干预措施,缩小城乡在安全带使用和乘客-车辆-乘员死亡率方面的差距。
{"title":"Rural and Urban Differences in Passenger-Vehicle-Occupant Deaths and Seat Belt Use Among Adults - United States, 2014.","authors":"Laurie F Beck,&nbsp;Jonathan Downs,&nbsp;Mark R Stevens,&nbsp;Erin K Sauber-Schatz","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6617a1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6617a1","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Problem/condition: &lt;/strong&gt;Motor-vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death in the United States. Compared with urban residents, rural residents are at an increased risk for death from crashes and are less likely to wear seat belts. These differences have not been well described by levels of rurality.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reporting period: &lt;/strong&gt;2014.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Description of systems: &lt;/strong&gt;Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) were used to identify passenger-vehicle-occupant deaths from motor-vehicle crashes and estimate the prevalence of seat belt use. FARS, a census of U.S. motor-vehicle crashes involving one or more deaths, was used to identify passenger-vehicle-occupant deaths among adults aged ≥18 years. Passenger-vehicle occupants were defined as persons driving or riding in passenger cars, light trucks, vans, or sport utility vehicles. Death rates per 100,000 population, age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. standard population and the proportion of occupants who were unrestrained at the time of the fatal crash, were calculated. BRFSS, an annual, state-based, random-digit-dialed telephone survey of the noninstitutionalized U.S. civilian population aged ≥18 years, was used to estimate prevalence of seat belt use. FARS and BRFSS data were analyzed by a six-level rural-urban designation, based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture 2013 rural-urban continuum codes, and stratified by census region and type of state seat belt enforcement law (primary or secondary).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Within each census region, age-adjusted passenger-vehicle-occupant death rates per 100,000 population increased with increasing rurality, from the most urban to the most rural counties: South, 6.8 to 29.2; Midwest, 5.3 to 25.8; West, 3.9 to 40.0; and Northeast, 3.5 to 10.8. (For the Northeast, data for the most rural counties were not reported because of suppression criteria; comparison is for the most urban to the second-most rural counties.) Similarly, the proportion of occupants who were unrestrained at the time of the fatal crash increased as rurality increased. Self-reported seat belt use in the United States decreased with increasing rurality, ranging from 88.8% in the most urban counties to 74.7% in the most rural counties. Similar differences in age-adjusted death rates and seat belt use were observed in states with primary and secondary seat belt enforcement laws.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Interpretation: &lt;/strong&gt;Rurality was associated with higher age-adjusted passenger-vehicle-occupant death rates, a higher proportion of unrestrained passenger-vehicle-occupant deaths, and lower seat belt use among adults in all census regions and regardless of state seat belt enforcement type.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Public health actions: &lt;/strong&gt;Seat belt use decreases and age-adjusted passenger-vehicle-occupant death rates increase with increasing levels of rurality. Improving seat belt use","PeriodicalId":48549,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Surveillance Summaries","volume":"66 17","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":24.9,"publicationDate":"2017-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829699/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35533678","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 48
Surveillance for Certain Health Behaviors and Conditions Among States and Selected Local Areas - Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2013 and 2014. 2013年和2014年美国各州和部分地方地区对某些健康行为和状况的监测--行为风险因素监测系统。
IF 37.3 1区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Pub Date : 2017-09-15 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6616a1
Sonya Gamble, Tebitha Mawokomatanda, Fang Xu, Pranesh P Chowdhury, Carol Pierannunzi, David Flegel, William Garvin, Machell Town
<p><strong>Problem: </strong>Chronic diseases and conditions (e.g., heart diseases, stroke, arthritis, and diabetes) are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. These conditions are costly to the U.S. economy, yet they are often preventable or controllable. Behavioral risk factors (e.g., excessive alcohol consumption, tobacco use, poor diet, frequent mental distress, and insufficient sleep) are linked to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Adopting positive health behaviors (e.g., staying physically active, quitting tobacco use, obtaining routine physical checkups, and checking blood pressure and cholesterol levels) can reduce morbidity and mortality from chronic diseases and conditions. Monitoring the health risk behaviors, chronic diseases and conditions, access to health care, and use of preventive health services at multilevel public health points (states, territories, and metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas [MMSA]) can provide important information for development and evaluation of health intervention programs.</p><p><strong>Reporting period: </strong>2013 and 2014.</p><p><strong>Description of the system: </strong>The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is an ongoing, state-based, random-digit-dialed telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults aged ≥18 years residing in the United States. BRFSS collects data on health risk behaviors, chronic diseases and conditions, access to health care, and use of preventive health services and practices related to the leading causes of death and disability in the United States and participating territories. This is the first BRFSS report to include age-adjusted prevalence estimates. For 2013 and 2014, these age-adjusted prevalence estimates are presented for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and selected MMSA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Age-adjusted prevalence estimates of health status indicators, health care access and preventive practices, health risk behaviors, chronic diseases and conditions, and cardiovascular conditions vary by state, territory, and MMSA. Each set of proportions presented refers to the range of age-adjusted prevalence estimates of selected BRFSS measures as reported by survey respondents. The following are estimates for 2013. Adults reporting frequent mental distress: 7.7%-15.2% in states and territories and 6.3%-19.4% in MMSA. Adults with inadequate sleep: 27.6%-49.2% in states and territories and 26.5%-44.4% in MMSA. Adults aged 18-64 years having health care coverage: 66.9%-92.4% in states and territories and 60.5%-97.6% in MMSA. Adults identifying as current cigarette smokers: 10.1%-28.8% in states and territories and 6.1%-33.6% in MMSA. Adults reporting binge drinking during the past month: 10.5%-25.2% in states and territories and 7.2%-25.3% in MMSA. Adults with obesity: 21.0%-35.2% in states and territories and 12.1%-37.1% in MMSA. Adults aged ≥45 years w
问题:慢性疾病和病症(如心脏病、中风、关节炎和糖尿病)是美国发病率和死亡率的主要原因。这些疾病给美国经济造成了巨大损失,但它们往往是可以预防或控制的。行为风险因素(如过度饮酒、吸烟、不良饮食、经常精神紧张和睡眠不足)与发病和死亡的主要原因有关。采取积极的健康行为(如坚持体育锻炼、戒烟、定期体检、检查血压和胆固醇水平)可以降低慢性疾病和病症的发病率和死亡率。在多级公共卫生点(州、地区以及大都市和微型城市统计区 [MMSA])监测健康风险行为、慢性疾病和病症、获得医疗保健的机会以及预防性保健服务的使用情况,可为制定和评估健康干预计划提供重要信息:行为风险因素监测系统(BRFSS)是一项以州为基础的持续性随机拨号电话调查,调查对象是居住在美国的年龄≥18 岁的非住院成年人。BRFSS 收集美国和参与地区与主要死亡和残疾原因相关的健康风险行为、慢性疾病和病症、获得医疗保健的机会、预防保健服务和实践的使用情况等方面的数据。这是第一份包含年龄调整流行率估计值的 BRFSS 报告。2013 年和 2014 年,这些年龄调整后的流行率估计值涉及美国所有 50 个州、哥伦比亚特区、波多黎各自由邦、关岛和选定的 MMSA:经年龄调整后的健康状况指标、医疗保健获取途径和预防措施、健康风险行为、慢性病和病症以及心血管疾病的患病率估计值因州、地区和 MMSA 而异。列出的每组比例指的是调查对象报告的 BRFSS 选定指标的年龄调整流行率估计值范围。以下是 2013 年的估计值。经常报告精神痛苦的成年人:各州和地区为 7.7%-15.2%,MMSA 为 6.3%-19.4%。睡眠不足的成年人:各州和地区为 27.6%-49.2%,MMSA 为 26.5%-44.4%。拥有医疗保险的 18-64 岁成年人:各州和地区为 66.9%-92.4%,MMSA 为 60.5%-97.6%。目前吸烟的成年人:各州和地区为 10.1%-28.8%,MMSA 为 6.1%-33.6%。报告在过去一个月中酗酒的成年人:各州和地区为 10.5%-25.2%,MMSA 为 7.2%-25.3%。肥胖成年人:各州和地区为 21.0%-35.2%,MMSA 为 12.1%-37.1%。年龄≥45 岁的成年人患有某种形式的关节炎:各州和地区为 30.6%-51.0%,而在马萨诸塞州和地区为 27.6%-52.4%。年龄≥45 岁的成年人患有冠心病:各州和地区为 7.4%-17.5%,MMSA 为 6.2%-20.9%。年龄≥45 岁的成年人中风:在各州和地区为 3.1%-7.5%,在 MMSA 为 2.3%-9.4%。患有高血压的成年人:各州和地区为 25.2%-40.1%,MMSA 为 22.2%-42.2%。患有高血脂的成年人:各州和地区为 28.8%-38.4%,MMSA 为 26.3%-39.6%。以下是 2014 年的估计值。经常报告身体不适的成年人:各州和地区为 7.8%-16.0%,MMSA 为 6.2%-18.5%。过去 3 年中接受过巴氏涂片检查的 21-65 岁女性:各州和地区为 67.7%-87.8%,MMSA 为 68.0%-94.3%。根据 2008 年美国预防服务工作组的建议,50-75 岁的成年人接受了结直肠癌筛查:各州和地区为 42.8%-76.7%,MMSA 为 49.1%-79.6%。睡眠不足的成年人:各州和地区为 28.4%-48.6%,MMSA 为 25.4%-45.3%。报告在过去一个月中暴饮暴食的成年人:各州和地区为 10.7%-25.1%,MMSA 为 6.7%-26.3%。年龄≥45 岁的成年人患有冠心病:各州和地区为 8.0%-17.1%,MMSA 为 7.6%-19.2%。年龄≥45 岁的成年人患有某种形式的关节炎:在各州和地区为 31.2%-54.7%,在 MMSA 为 28.4%-54.7%。患有肥胖症的成年人:各州和地区为 21.0%-35.9%,MMSA 为 19.7%-42.5%:某些慢性疾病和病症的患病率、健康风险行为以及预防保健服务的使用情况在各州、地区和医疗卫生服务机构之间存在差异。本报告的研究结果强调了在州和地方层面继续监测健康状况、医疗保健服务、健康行为以及慢性疾病和病症的必要性:州和地方卫生部门及机构可继续使用 BRFSS 数据来识别某些不健康行为及慢性疾病和病症的高危人群。
{"title":"Surveillance for Certain Health Behaviors and Conditions Among States and Selected Local Areas - Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2013 and 2014.","authors":"Sonya Gamble, Tebitha Mawokomatanda, Fang Xu, Pranesh P Chowdhury, Carol Pierannunzi, David Flegel, William Garvin, Machell Town","doi":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6616a1","DOIUrl":"10.15585/mmwr.ss6616a1","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Problem: &lt;/strong&gt;Chronic diseases and conditions (e.g., heart diseases, stroke, arthritis, and diabetes) are the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in the United States. These conditions are costly to the U.S. economy, yet they are often preventable or controllable. Behavioral risk factors (e.g., excessive alcohol consumption, tobacco use, poor diet, frequent mental distress, and insufficient sleep) are linked to the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Adopting positive health behaviors (e.g., staying physically active, quitting tobacco use, obtaining routine physical checkups, and checking blood pressure and cholesterol levels) can reduce morbidity and mortality from chronic diseases and conditions. Monitoring the health risk behaviors, chronic diseases and conditions, access to health care, and use of preventive health services at multilevel public health points (states, territories, and metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas [MMSA]) can provide important information for development and evaluation of health intervention programs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Reporting period: &lt;/strong&gt;2013 and 2014.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Description of the system: &lt;/strong&gt;The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is an ongoing, state-based, random-digit-dialed telephone survey of noninstitutionalized adults aged ≥18 years residing in the United States. BRFSS collects data on health risk behaviors, chronic diseases and conditions, access to health care, and use of preventive health services and practices related to the leading causes of death and disability in the United States and participating territories. This is the first BRFSS report to include age-adjusted prevalence estimates. For 2013 and 2014, these age-adjusted prevalence estimates are presented for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and selected MMSA.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Age-adjusted prevalence estimates of health status indicators, health care access and preventive practices, health risk behaviors, chronic diseases and conditions, and cardiovascular conditions vary by state, territory, and MMSA. Each set of proportions presented refers to the range of age-adjusted prevalence estimates of selected BRFSS measures as reported by survey respondents. The following are estimates for 2013. Adults reporting frequent mental distress: 7.7%-15.2% in states and territories and 6.3%-19.4% in MMSA. Adults with inadequate sleep: 27.6%-49.2% in states and territories and 26.5%-44.4% in MMSA. Adults aged 18-64 years having health care coverage: 66.9%-92.4% in states and territories and 60.5%-97.6% in MMSA. Adults identifying as current cigarette smokers: 10.1%-28.8% in states and territories and 6.1%-33.6% in MMSA. Adults reporting binge drinking during the past month: 10.5%-25.2% in states and territories and 7.2%-25.3% in MMSA. Adults with obesity: 21.0%-35.2% in states and territories and 12.1%-37.1% in MMSA. Adults aged ≥45 years w","PeriodicalId":48549,"journal":{"name":"Mmwr Surveillance Summaries","volume":"66 16","pages":"1-144"},"PeriodicalIF":37.3,"publicationDate":"2017-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829867/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10264661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Mmwr Surveillance Summaries
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
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
×
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
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