The influence of social determinants on the use of prevention and health promotion services: Results of a systematic literature review.

Psycho-social medicine Pub Date : 2012-01-01 Epub Date: 2012-10-25 DOI:10.3205/psm000085
Christian Janßen, Stefanie Sauter, Christoph Kowalski
{"title":"The influence of social determinants on the use of prevention and health promotion services: Results of a systematic literature review.","authors":"Christian Janßen,&nbsp;Stefanie Sauter,&nbsp;Christoph Kowalski","doi":"10.3205/psm000085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The following analysis aims to determine whether differences in the use of prevention and health promotion services in Germany can be attributed to health inequality between different social status groups measured by education, occupation and income and where certain improvements can be made in health promotion and prevention efforts and research to reduce those differences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted using MedPilot to identify relevant articles published between 1998 and 2010 in the Medline, Medizinische Gesundheit, CC Med, Deutsches Ärzteblatt and Sozialmedizin (SOMED) databases, the Hogrefe, Karger, Krause and Pachermegg and Thieme publisher databases, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 23 empirical studies on the topic of \"prevention, health prevention and social inequality\" met the criteria for inclusion in the review. 20 of the 23 reviewed studies provided relatively clear evidence of a significant association between higher social status and greater use of prevention and health promotion services. According to the reviewed studies, gender tends to have a greater effect on the use of prevention and health promotion services than characteristics of vertical social inequality. No studies were found dealing with tertiary prevention or using qualitative methods to explore their research questions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, the review shows that there is sufficient evidence for the relationship between social status and the use of prevention and health promotion services and that this association is both significant and relevant. There are, however, a few \"blind spots\" in research on this topic, such as a lack of studies on tertiary prevention, especially with regards to prevention and health promotion services use among men, as well as general studies on health promotion among men and women. There is also a lack of published intervention studies demonstrating how to better reach the socially disadvantaged.</p>","PeriodicalId":88305,"journal":{"name":"Psycho-social medicine","volume":"9 ","pages":"Doc07"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3205/psm000085","citationCount":"33","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psycho-social medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/psm000085","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

Abstract

Background: The following analysis aims to determine whether differences in the use of prevention and health promotion services in Germany can be attributed to health inequality between different social status groups measured by education, occupation and income and where certain improvements can be made in health promotion and prevention efforts and research to reduce those differences.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using MedPilot to identify relevant articles published between 1998 and 2010 in the Medline, Medizinische Gesundheit, CC Med, Deutsches Ärzteblatt and Sozialmedizin (SOMED) databases, the Hogrefe, Karger, Krause and Pachermegg and Thieme publisher databases, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

Results: A total of 23 empirical studies on the topic of "prevention, health prevention and social inequality" met the criteria for inclusion in the review. 20 of the 23 reviewed studies provided relatively clear evidence of a significant association between higher social status and greater use of prevention and health promotion services. According to the reviewed studies, gender tends to have a greater effect on the use of prevention and health promotion services than characteristics of vertical social inequality. No studies were found dealing with tertiary prevention or using qualitative methods to explore their research questions.

Conclusions: Overall, the review shows that there is sufficient evidence for the relationship between social status and the use of prevention and health promotion services and that this association is both significant and relevant. There are, however, a few "blind spots" in research on this topic, such as a lack of studies on tertiary prevention, especially with regards to prevention and health promotion services use among men, as well as general studies on health promotion among men and women. There is also a lack of published intervention studies demonstrating how to better reach the socially disadvantaged.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

社会决定因素对预防和健康促进服务使用的影响:系统文献综述的结果。
背景:以下分析旨在确定德国在使用预防和健康促进服务方面的差异是否可归因于以教育、职业和收入衡量的不同社会地位群体之间的健康不平等,以及在哪些方面可以在健康促进和预防工作以及减少这些差异的研究方面做出某些改进。方法:使用MedPilot进行系统的文献检索,以确定1998年至2010年间发表在Medline、Medizinische Gesundheit、CC Med、DeutschesÉrzteblatt和Sozialmedizin(SOMED)数据库、Hogrefe、Karger、Krause和Pachermeg以及Thieme出版商数据库、Cochrane系统评价数据库(CDSR),结果:共有23项关于“预防、健康预防和社会不平等”主题的实证研究符合纳入审查的标准。23项审查研究中有20项提供了相对明确的证据,证明较高的社会地位与更多地使用预防和健康促进服务之间存在显著联系。根据审查的研究,与纵向社会不平等的特征相比,性别往往对预防和健康促进服务的使用产生更大的影响。没有发现涉及三级预防或使用定性方法探讨其研究问题的研究。结论:总的来说,审查表明,有足够的证据表明社会地位与预防和健康促进服务的使用之间存在关系,这种联系既重要又相关。然而,在这一主题的研究中存在一些“盲点”,例如缺乏对三级预防的研究,特别是对男性使用预防和健康促进服务的研究,以及对男性和女性健康促进的一般性研究。也缺乏已发表的干预研究来证明如何更好地惠及社会弱势群体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书