巴西在获得综合和补充保健做法方面的不平等:2019年全国健康调查。

IF 1.9 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Journal of Public Health-Heidelberg Pub Date : 2023-03-11 DOI:10.1007/s10389-023-01869-6
Karla Pereira Machado, Vanessa Radin, Cristina Santos Paludo, Dienefer Venske Bierhals, Mariane Pergher Soares, Rosália Garcia Neves, Mirelle Oliveira Saes
{"title":"巴西在获得综合和补充保健做法方面的不平等:2019年全国健康调查。","authors":"Karla Pereira Machado,&nbsp;Vanessa Radin,&nbsp;Cristina Santos Paludo,&nbsp;Dienefer Venske Bierhals,&nbsp;Mariane Pergher Soares,&nbsp;Rosália Garcia Neves,&nbsp;Mirelle Oliveira Saes","doi":"10.1007/s10389-023-01869-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Integrative and complementary practices (PICs) can be important health care strategies, mainly because they consider the integrality of the person. The objective of this article was to verify the inequality in the access to PICs of the Brazilian population based on data from the National Health Survey (PNS).</p><p><strong>Subject and methods: </strong>This is a population-based cross-sectional study, with data from the 2019 PNS. The use of PICs in the past 12 months was investigated. Adjusted analysis was performed using Poisson regression and the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and the Concentration Index (CIX) were used to assess absolute and relative inequality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The prevalence of PIC use in Brazil was 5.4% (95%CI 5.3; 5.5). Individuals from the richest quintile, with higher education and with health insurance were more likely to use PICs in general, except for medicinal plants/herbal medicine. When observing the magnitude of inequalities, this was more positively accentuated in those with higher education and who had a private health plan.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results reveal social inequalities in the access to integrative practices, where the most elitist are more accessed by people with better socioeconomic conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":29967,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Health-Heidelberg","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10008017/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inequalities in access to integrative and complementary health practices in Brazil: National Health Survey, 2019.\",\"authors\":\"Karla Pereira Machado,&nbsp;Vanessa Radin,&nbsp;Cristina Santos Paludo,&nbsp;Dienefer Venske Bierhals,&nbsp;Mariane Pergher Soares,&nbsp;Rosália Garcia Neves,&nbsp;Mirelle Oliveira Saes\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10389-023-01869-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>Integrative and complementary practices (PICs) can be important health care strategies, mainly because they consider the integrality of the person. The objective of this article was to verify the inequality in the access to PICs of the Brazilian population based on data from the National Health Survey (PNS).</p><p><strong>Subject and methods: </strong>This is a population-based cross-sectional study, with data from the 2019 PNS. The use of PICs in the past 12 months was investigated. Adjusted analysis was performed using Poisson regression and the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and the Concentration Index (CIX) were used to assess absolute and relative inequality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The prevalence of PIC use in Brazil was 5.4% (95%CI 5.3; 5.5). Individuals from the richest quintile, with higher education and with health insurance were more likely to use PICs in general, except for medicinal plants/herbal medicine. When observing the magnitude of inequalities, this was more positively accentuated in those with higher education and who had a private health plan.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results reveal social inequalities in the access to integrative practices, where the most elitist are more accessed by people with better socioeconomic conditions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29967,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Public Health-Heidelberg\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10008017/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Public Health-Heidelberg\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-01869-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Health-Heidelberg","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-01869-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:综合和补充实践(PIC)可能是重要的医疗保健策略,主要是因为它们考虑了人的完整性。本文的目的是根据国家健康调查(PNS)的数据验证巴西人口在获得PICs方面的不平等。主题和方法:这是一项基于人口的横断面研究,数据来自2019年PNS。对过去12个月PICs的使用情况进行了调查。使用泊松回归进行调整分析,使用不平等斜率指数(SII)和集中指数(CIX)评估绝对和相对不平等。结果:在巴西,PIC的使用率为5.4%(95%CI 5.3;5.5)。除药用植物/草药外,来自最富有的五分之一人群、受过高等教育并有健康保险的人更可能在一般情况下使用PIC。当观察到不平等的程度时,这一点在受过高等教育和有私人医疗计划的人身上得到了更积极的强调。结论:研究结果揭示了在获得综合实践方面的社会不平等,社会经济条件较好的人更容易获得最精英的实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Inequalities in access to integrative and complementary health practices in Brazil: National Health Survey, 2019.

Aim: Integrative and complementary practices (PICs) can be important health care strategies, mainly because they consider the integrality of the person. The objective of this article was to verify the inequality in the access to PICs of the Brazilian population based on data from the National Health Survey (PNS).

Subject and methods: This is a population-based cross-sectional study, with data from the 2019 PNS. The use of PICs in the past 12 months was investigated. Adjusted analysis was performed using Poisson regression and the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and the Concentration Index (CIX) were used to assess absolute and relative inequality.

Results: The prevalence of PIC use in Brazil was 5.4% (95%CI 5.3; 5.5). Individuals from the richest quintile, with higher education and with health insurance were more likely to use PICs in general, except for medicinal plants/herbal medicine. When observing the magnitude of inequalities, this was more positively accentuated in those with higher education and who had a private health plan.

Conclusion: The results reveal social inequalities in the access to integrative practices, where the most elitist are more accessed by people with better socioeconomic conditions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Public Health-Heidelberg
Journal of Public Health-Heidelberg PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The relationship between life satisfaction, personal health, quality of life, and medication adherence among adolescents living with HIV in southwestern Uganda. Self-reported health among immigrants in Luxembourg: insights from a nationally representative sample. Levelling Up for health in towns? Development of a new deprivation index: the 'Stronger Towns Index' and its association with self-rated health and migration in England, between 2001 and 2011. Social networks and health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study among older adults in the Netherlands. Racial disparities in lifestyle habits and dietary patterns in university students during the COVID-19 pandemic.
×
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