• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Social science and medicine >When one's main effect is another's error: material vs. psychosocial explanations of health disparities. A commentary on Macleod et al., 'is subjective social status a more important determinant of health than objective social status? Evidence from a
【24h】

When one's main effect is another's error: material vs. psychosocial explanations of health disparities. A commentary on Macleod et al., 'is subjective social status a more important determinant of health than objective social status? Evidence from a

机译：当一个人的主要影响是另一个人的错误时：对健康差异的物质与心理社会解释。对Macleod等人的评论说：“主观社会地位比健康的决定因素更重要吗？”

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Two pathways by which socioeconomic factors result in health disparities are the material and the psychosocial. Recently, Macleod and colleagues reported on data showing that a subjective measure of workplace status was not as strongly related to mortality as were objective indicators and that another psychosocial measure, perceived stress, did not mediate the impact of these indicators [Macleod et al., 2005. Is subjective social status a more important determinant of health than objective social status? Evidence from a prospective observational study of Scottish men. Social Science & Medicine, 61(9), 1916-1929]. They suggest that the failure of these variables is indicative of the relative insignificance of psychosocial influences on health. This commentary argues for a different approach to examining these pathways. Efforts to demonstrate the failure of variables to predict health have the usual difficulties of trying to prove the null hypothesis. In this instance, problems in the conceptualization and measurement of psychosocial variables may account for the null results. Psychosocial and material factors are not mutually exclusive but, rather, are complementary. Unexplained variation in health when material factors are accounted for may be explained in part by psychosocial factors and vice versa. Collaboration between researchers who understand each of these domains will yield the greatest benefit in terms of understanding the processes leading to health disparities and providing multiple approaches for eliminating them.
机译：社会经济因素导致健康差异的两个途径是物质和社会心理。最近，Macleod及其同事报告了数据，这些数据表明，工作场所状态的主观衡量标准与死亡率没有客观指标密切相关，并且另一项心理社会衡量标准（感知压力）并未调解这些指标的影响[Macleod等， 2005年。主观社会地位是否比客观社会地位更重要地决定健康？来自苏格兰男子的前瞻性观察研究的证据。社会科学与医学，61（9），1916-1929]。他们认为这些变量的失败表明心理社会影响健康的相对重要性。该评论主张采用不同的方法来检查这些途径。试图证明变量无法预测健康的努力具有尝试证明原假设的通常困难。在这种情况下，心理社会变量的概念化和测量中的问题可能导致无效结果。社会心理和物质因素不是相互排斥的，而是相辅相成的。当考虑到物质因素时，无法解释的健康差异可能部分由心理社会因素解释，反之亦然。了解每个领域的研究人员之间的合作，将对了解导致健康差异的过程并提供消除这些差异的多种方法产生最大的好处。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号