挑战一项统计数据:为什么我们要接受60%的澳大利亚成年人健康素养较低的事实?

S. Black
{"title":"挑战一项统计数据:为什么我们要接受60%的澳大利亚成年人健康素养较低的事实?","authors":"S. Black","doi":"10.5130/LNS.V24I1.4901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper briefly considers Australia’s only national health survey published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 2008 which has been widely referenced within the health sector. The main issue discussed is the use of a criterion level (level 3) to determine the point below which nearly 60 percent of Australian adults can be considered to have inadequate health literacy. The argument is made that this criterion level is arbitrary and statistically unjustified, yet it serves the purpose of presenting health literacy as a ‘crisis’ demanding action, which in turn represents the interests of dominant groups in this globalised, neo-liberal era.","PeriodicalId":52030,"journal":{"name":"Literacy and Numeracy Studies","volume":"8 1","pages":"65-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenging a Statistic: Why should we accept that 60 percent of adult Australians have low health literacy?\",\"authors\":\"S. Black\",\"doi\":\"10.5130/LNS.V24I1.4901\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper briefly considers Australia’s only national health survey published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 2008 which has been widely referenced within the health sector. The main issue discussed is the use of a criterion level (level 3) to determine the point below which nearly 60 percent of Australian adults can be considered to have inadequate health literacy. The argument is made that this criterion level is arbitrary and statistically unjustified, yet it serves the purpose of presenting health literacy as a ‘crisis’ demanding action, which in turn represents the interests of dominant groups in this globalised, neo-liberal era.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52030,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Literacy and Numeracy Studies\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"65-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Literacy and Numeracy Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5130/LNS.V24I1.4901\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Literacy and Numeracy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5130/LNS.V24I1.4901","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

本文简要考虑了澳大利亚统计局(ABS)在2008年发布的澳大利亚唯一的全国健康调查,该调查已在卫生部门广泛引用。讨论的主要问题是使用标准级别(3级)来确定低于该级别的近60%的澳大利亚成年人可被视为卫生知识普及不足。有人认为,这一标准水平是武断的,在统计上是不合理的,然而,它的目的是将卫生素养作为一种要求采取行动的“危机”,这反过来又代表了这个全球化的新自由主义时代主导群体的利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Challenging a Statistic: Why should we accept that 60 percent of adult Australians have low health literacy?
This paper briefly considers Australia’s only national health survey published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 2008 which has been widely referenced within the health sector. The main issue discussed is the use of a criterion level (level 3) to determine the point below which nearly 60 percent of Australian adults can be considered to have inadequate health literacy. The argument is made that this criterion level is arbitrary and statistically unjustified, yet it serves the purpose of presenting health literacy as a ‘crisis’ demanding action, which in turn represents the interests of dominant groups in this globalised, neo-liberal era.
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
Literacy and Numeracy Studies
Literacy and Numeracy Studies EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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