车辆差距:财富不平等和道路伤害风险表征在越南

J. Park
{"title":"车辆差距:财富不平等和道路伤害风险表征在越南","authors":"J. Park","doi":"10.52214/thecujgh.v9i2.7256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Road traffic injury (RTI) is a frequently overlooked issue in the literature of global health. This perspective examines the ways in which wealth inequality exacerbates RTI risk characterization in the specific model of Vietnam. The framework of the Equality-Sustainability Hypothesis, as suggested by Cushing et. al, is used, with a specific focus on three factors: political misrepresentation, discrepancy in consumption intensity, and lack of social cohesion. Policies regarding helmet coverage, healthcare infrastructure, road quality and social psychology are critically analyzed, with sources drawn primarily from epidemiological study designs. Such analyses provide the basis for various policy suggestions towards the end of the perspective that focus specifically on wealth inequality as the primary point of intervention. Overall, this perspective suggests that the Equality-Sustainability Hypothesis holds true in the example of RTIs in Vietnam, which is specifically referred to as a “Vehicle Gap”, and that this hypothesis be made more comprehensive by liberalizing its definition of environment to also include man-made infrastructure.","PeriodicalId":128122,"journal":{"name":"The Columbia University Journal of Global Health","volume":"389 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Vehicle Gap: Wealth Inequality and Road Injury Risk Characterization in Vietnam\",\"authors\":\"J. Park\",\"doi\":\"10.52214/thecujgh.v9i2.7256\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Road traffic injury (RTI) is a frequently overlooked issue in the literature of global health. This perspective examines the ways in which wealth inequality exacerbates RTI risk characterization in the specific model of Vietnam. The framework of the Equality-Sustainability Hypothesis, as suggested by Cushing et. al, is used, with a specific focus on three factors: political misrepresentation, discrepancy in consumption intensity, and lack of social cohesion. Policies regarding helmet coverage, healthcare infrastructure, road quality and social psychology are critically analyzed, with sources drawn primarily from epidemiological study designs. Such analyses provide the basis for various policy suggestions towards the end of the perspective that focus specifically on wealth inequality as the primary point of intervention. Overall, this perspective suggests that the Equality-Sustainability Hypothesis holds true in the example of RTIs in Vietnam, which is specifically referred to as a “Vehicle Gap”, and that this hypothesis be made more comprehensive by liberalizing its definition of environment to also include man-made infrastructure.\",\"PeriodicalId\":128122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Columbia University Journal of Global Health\",\"volume\":\"389 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Columbia University Journal of Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.52214/thecujgh.v9i2.7256\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Columbia University Journal of Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/thecujgh.v9i2.7256","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

道路交通伤害(RTI)是全球卫生文献中一个经常被忽视的问题。这一视角考察了财富不平等在越南特定模型中加剧RTI风险表征的方式。本文使用了库欣等人提出的平等-可持续性假设框架,并特别关注三个因素:政治歪曲、消费强度差异和缺乏社会凝聚力。对有关头盔覆盖率、保健基础设施、道路质量和社会心理学的政策进行了批判性分析,其来源主要来自流行病学研究设计。这些分析提供了各种政策建议的基础,这些政策建议将特别关注财富不平等作为主要干预点。总体而言,这一观点表明,平等-可持续性假设在越南的rti的例子中是正确的,具体称为“车辆差距”,并且通过放宽其对环境的定义,将人造基础设施也包括在内,可以使这一假设更加全面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Vehicle Gap: Wealth Inequality and Road Injury Risk Characterization in Vietnam
Road traffic injury (RTI) is a frequently overlooked issue in the literature of global health. This perspective examines the ways in which wealth inequality exacerbates RTI risk characterization in the specific model of Vietnam. The framework of the Equality-Sustainability Hypothesis, as suggested by Cushing et. al, is used, with a specific focus on three factors: political misrepresentation, discrepancy in consumption intensity, and lack of social cohesion. Policies regarding helmet coverage, healthcare infrastructure, road quality and social psychology are critically analyzed, with sources drawn primarily from epidemiological study designs. Such analyses provide the basis for various policy suggestions towards the end of the perspective that focus specifically on wealth inequality as the primary point of intervention. Overall, this perspective suggests that the Equality-Sustainability Hypothesis holds true in the example of RTIs in Vietnam, which is specifically referred to as a “Vehicle Gap”, and that this hypothesis be made more comprehensive by liberalizing its definition of environment to also include man-made infrastructure.
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
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信