欧洲右翼民粹主义与自评健康:多层次分析

I. Backhaus, S. Kino, G. La Torre, I. Kawachi
{"title":"欧洲右翼民粹主义与自评健康:多层次分析","authors":"I. Backhaus, S. Kino, G. La Torre, I. Kawachi","doi":"10.1136/jech-2018-211995","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Individuals who identify as politically conservative have been previously shown to report better self-rated health compared with liberals. We tested whether this association still holds for right-wing populists, which are gaining strength as a political force in Europe in recent decades. Methods We analysed data from 24 617 respondents nested within 18 European countries included in the 2016 European Social Survey. Multilevel analyses were conducted to assess the association between political ideology and self-rated health, adjusting for other individual covariates (happiness and social capital). Results Individuals who voted for right-wing populist parties were 43% more likely to report fair/poor health compared with traditional conservatives (OR=1.43, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.67). The association was attenuated (OR=1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.42) after controlling for additional individual-level variables, including happiness and access to social capital. Higher levels of social capital (informal networks, OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.56; trust, OR=0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92) and happiness (OR=0.18, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.22) were protectively correlated with fair/poor self-rated health. Conclusions Individuals voting for right-wing populist parties report worse health compared with conservatives. It remains unclear whether ideology is just a marker for health-related practices, or whether the values and beliefs associated with a particular brand of ideology lead to worse health.","PeriodicalId":15778,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Right-wing populism and self-rated health in Europe: a multilevel analysis\",\"authors\":\"I. Backhaus, S. Kino, G. La Torre, I. Kawachi\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jech-2018-211995\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Individuals who identify as politically conservative have been previously shown to report better self-rated health compared with liberals. We tested whether this association still holds for right-wing populists, which are gaining strength as a political force in Europe in recent decades. Methods We analysed data from 24 617 respondents nested within 18 European countries included in the 2016 European Social Survey. Multilevel analyses were conducted to assess the association between political ideology and self-rated health, adjusting for other individual covariates (happiness and social capital). Results Individuals who voted for right-wing populist parties were 43% more likely to report fair/poor health compared with traditional conservatives (OR=1.43, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.67). The association was attenuated (OR=1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.42) after controlling for additional individual-level variables, including happiness and access to social capital. Higher levels of social capital (informal networks, OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.56; trust, OR=0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92) and happiness (OR=0.18, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.22) were protectively correlated with fair/poor self-rated health. Conclusions Individuals voting for right-wing populist parties report worse health compared with conservatives. It remains unclear whether ideology is just a marker for health-related practices, or whether the values and beliefs associated with a particular brand of ideology lead to worse health.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15778,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-211995\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2018-211995","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

与自由主义者相比,政治上保守的人自我评估的健康状况更好。我们测试了这种联系是否仍然适用于右翼民粹主义者,近几十年来,右翼民粹主义者作为一股政治力量在欧洲越来越强大。我们分析了2016年欧洲社会调查中18个欧洲国家的24617名受访者的数据。在对其他个体协变量(幸福和社会资本)进行调整后,进行了多水平分析,以评估政治意识形态与自评健康之间的关系。结果与传统保守派相比,投票给右翼民粹主义政党的个人报告健康状况一般/较差的可能性要高43% (OR=1.43, 95% CI 1.23至1.67)。在控制了额外的个人层面变量,包括幸福和获得社会资本后,这种关联减弱了(OR=1.21, 95% CI 1.03至1.42)。更高水平的社会资本(非正式网络,OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.29至0.56;信任(OR= 0.82, 95% CI 0.74至0.92)和快乐(OR=0.18, 95% CI 0.15至0.22)与自我评价健康的一般/较差具有保护相关。与保守派相比,投票给右翼民粹主义政党的个人健康状况更差。目前尚不清楚,意识形态是否只是与健康相关的实践的标志,还是与特定意识形态品牌相关的价值观和信仰导致健康状况恶化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Right-wing populism and self-rated health in Europe: a multilevel analysis
Background Individuals who identify as politically conservative have been previously shown to report better self-rated health compared with liberals. We tested whether this association still holds for right-wing populists, which are gaining strength as a political force in Europe in recent decades. Methods We analysed data from 24 617 respondents nested within 18 European countries included in the 2016 European Social Survey. Multilevel analyses were conducted to assess the association between political ideology and self-rated health, adjusting for other individual covariates (happiness and social capital). Results Individuals who voted for right-wing populist parties were 43% more likely to report fair/poor health compared with traditional conservatives (OR=1.43, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.67). The association was attenuated (OR=1.21, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.42) after controlling for additional individual-level variables, including happiness and access to social capital. Higher levels of social capital (informal networks, OR=0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.56; trust, OR=0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.92) and happiness (OR=0.18, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.22) were protectively correlated with fair/poor self-rated health. Conclusions Individuals voting for right-wing populist parties report worse health compared with conservatives. It remains unclear whether ideology is just a marker for health-related practices, or whether the values and beliefs associated with a particular brand of ideology lead to worse health.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Early adulthood socioeconomic trajectories contribute to inequalities in adult diet quality, independent of childhood and adulthood socioeconomic position Education-related inequalities in disability during the last years of life: a full population register-based study Impact of increasing workforce racial diversity on black-white disparities in cardiovascular disease mortality Gender-specific aspects of socialisation and risk of cardiovascular disease among community-dwelling older adults: a prospective cohort study using machine learning algorithms and a conventional method Poverty trajectories and child and mother well-being outcomes in Ireland: findings from an Irish prospective cohort
×
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