[农村环境发病率。]两种数据获取方法的比较研究]。

Revista de sanidad e higiene publica Pub Date : 1993-11-01
M C Sáenz González, R González Celador, L F Valero Juan, J A Mirón Canelo
{"title":"[农村环境发病率。]两种数据获取方法的比较研究]。","authors":"M C Sáenz González,&nbsp;R González Celador,&nbsp;L F Valero Juan,&nbsp;J A Mirón Canelo","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The great amount of information required to have the possibility of carrying out an opportune correct health planning has been the cause of an increased interest in the Information Systems about morbidity and it is primary level where the obtention of data becomes more difficult. The source of data is one of the problems to be solved; health surveys and consultation registers have been the most frequently used. Both show differences in their results, mainly due to the differences between the perceived morbidity and the treated morbidity, respectively established by each one of them. The objective of our study is to compare perceived morbidity with treated morbidity in the rural environment of Salamanca Province.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data on morbidity obtained by the system of register in primary health care of the Community of Castilla y León in five base health areas of Salamanca Province, are compared with data obtained by interview survey in those areas during the same period of time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The three first causes of morbidity were: Diseases of Respiratory System, Digestive System and Circulatory System according to the home survey and Infectious and Parasite Diseases, Supplementary Classification and Signs, Symptoms and improperly Defined Morbid Status, according to registers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Taking into account the results obtained, the differences between both sources were statistically significative and the greatest differences were found in the group of Signs and improperly defined Morbid Status, Infections Diseases and the Supplementary Classification.</p>","PeriodicalId":76450,"journal":{"name":"Revista de sanidad e higiene publica","volume":"67 6","pages":"485-95"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Morbidity in rural environment. A comparative study of 2 methods of obtaining data].\",\"authors\":\"M C Sáenz González,&nbsp;R González Celador,&nbsp;L F Valero Juan,&nbsp;J A Mirón Canelo\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The great amount of information required to have the possibility of carrying out an opportune correct health planning has been the cause of an increased interest in the Information Systems about morbidity and it is primary level where the obtention of data becomes more difficult. The source of data is one of the problems to be solved; health surveys and consultation registers have been the most frequently used. Both show differences in their results, mainly due to the differences between the perceived morbidity and the treated morbidity, respectively established by each one of them. The objective of our study is to compare perceived morbidity with treated morbidity in the rural environment of Salamanca Province.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data on morbidity obtained by the system of register in primary health care of the Community of Castilla y León in five base health areas of Salamanca Province, are compared with data obtained by interview survey in those areas during the same period of time.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The three first causes of morbidity were: Diseases of Respiratory System, Digestive System and Circulatory System according to the home survey and Infectious and Parasite Diseases, Supplementary Classification and Signs, Symptoms and improperly Defined Morbid Status, according to registers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Taking into account the results obtained, the differences between both sources were statistically significative and the greatest differences were found in the group of Signs and improperly defined Morbid Status, Infections Diseases and the Supplementary Classification.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76450,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista de sanidad e higiene publica\",\"volume\":\"67 6\",\"pages\":\"485-95\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1993-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista de sanidad e higiene publica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de sanidad e higiene publica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

背景:有可能进行适当的正确的健康计划需要大量的信息,这是人们对发病率信息系统越来越感兴趣的原因,这是初级水平,数据的获取变得更加困难。数据的来源是需要解决的问题之一;健康调查和咨询登记是最常用的方法。两者的结果都有差异,主要是由于它们各自建立的感知发病率和治疗发病率之间的差异。我们研究的目的是比较萨拉曼卡省农村环境中的感知发病率和治疗发病率。方法:将萨拉曼卡省5个基层卫生保健区León卡斯蒂亚社区基层卫生保健登记系统的发病率数据与同期访谈调查数据进行比较。结果:前3位发病原因分别为:家庭调查中发现的呼吸系统、消化系统和循环系统疾病;登记资料中发现的传染病和寄生虫病、补充分类和体征、症状和不正确的发病状态。结论:综合所获得的结果,两种来源之间的差异具有统计学意义,差异最大的是体征和不正确定义的病态状态组、感染疾病组和补充分类组。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[Morbidity in rural environment. A comparative study of 2 methods of obtaining data].

Background: The great amount of information required to have the possibility of carrying out an opportune correct health planning has been the cause of an increased interest in the Information Systems about morbidity and it is primary level where the obtention of data becomes more difficult. The source of data is one of the problems to be solved; health surveys and consultation registers have been the most frequently used. Both show differences in their results, mainly due to the differences between the perceived morbidity and the treated morbidity, respectively established by each one of them. The objective of our study is to compare perceived morbidity with treated morbidity in the rural environment of Salamanca Province.

Methods: Data on morbidity obtained by the system of register in primary health care of the Community of Castilla y León in five base health areas of Salamanca Province, are compared with data obtained by interview survey in those areas during the same period of time.

Results: The three first causes of morbidity were: Diseases of Respiratory System, Digestive System and Circulatory System according to the home survey and Infectious and Parasite Diseases, Supplementary Classification and Signs, Symptoms and improperly Defined Morbid Status, according to registers.

Conclusions: Taking into account the results obtained, the differences between both sources were statistically significative and the greatest differences were found in the group of Signs and improperly defined Morbid Status, Infections Diseases and the Supplementary Classification.

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