Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKavanagh, Anne M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTURRELL, GAVINen_US
dc.contributor.authorSUBRAMANIAN, S. V.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-22T09:06:31Z
dc.date.available2014-05-22T09:06:31Z
dc.date.issued2006en_US
dc.date.submitted2006-11-13en_US
dc.identifier.citationKavanagh, A. M., Turrell, G., & Subramanian, S. V. (2006). Does area-based social capital matter for the health of Australians? A multilevel analysis of self-rated health in Tasmania. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(3), 607-613.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/33451
dc.descriptionCopyright confirmation in progress. Any queries to UMER-enquiries@unimelb.edu.auen_US
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Material circumstances and collective psychosocial processes have been invoked as potential explanations for socioeconomic inequalities in health; and, linking social capital has been proposed as a way of reconciling these apparently opposing explanations. METHODS: We conducted multilevel logistic regression of self-rated health (fair or poor vs excellent, very good, or good) on 14,495 individuals living within 41 statistical local areas who were respondents to the 1998 Tasmanian Healthy Communities Study. We modelled the effects of area-level socioeconomic disadvantage and social capital (neighbourhood integration, neighbourhood alienation, neighbourhood safety, social trust, trust in public/private institutions, and political participation), and adjusted for the effects of individual characteristics. RESULTS: Area-level socioeconomic disadvantage was associated with poor self-rated health (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07-1.13) an effect that was attenuated, but remained significant, after adjusting for individual characteristics (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07). Social trust was associated with a reduction in poor self-rated health (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.99) and remained significant when individual characteristics (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.99) were included. Political participation was non-significant in the unadjusted model but became significant when adjusted for individual characteristics (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.97). The effects of social trust and political participation were attenuated and became non-significant when area-level socioeconomic disadvantage was included. CONCLUSION: Area-based socioeconomic disadvantage is a determinant of self-rated health in Tasmania, but we did not find an independent effect of area-level social capital. These findings suggest that in Tasmania investments in improving the material circumstances in which people live are likely to lead to greater improvements in population health than attempts to increase area-level social capital.en_US
dc.formatapplication/pdfen_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/3/607en_US
dc.subjectsocial capitalen_US
dc.subjectsocio-economic disadvantageen_US
dc.subjectmultilevel analysisen_US
dc.titleDoes area-based social capital matter for the health of Australians? A multilevel analysis of self-rated health in Tasmaniaen_US
dc.typeJournal (Paginated)en_US
melbourne.peerreviewPeer Revieweden_US
melbourne.affiliationThe University of Melbourneen_US
melbourne.affiliation.departmentMedicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences: Key Centre for Women's Health in Societyen_US
melbourne.publication.statusPublisheden_US
melbourne.source.titleInternational Journal of Epidemiologyen_US
melbourne.source.month06en_US
melbourne.source.volume35en_US
melbourne.source.issue3en_US
melbourne.source.pages607-613en_US
melbourne.elementsidNA
melbourne.contributor.authorKavanagh, Anne
melbourne.contributor.authorTurrell, Gavin
melbourne.accessrightsThis item is currently not available from this repository


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record