medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

2012, Número 4

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

salud publica mex 2012; 54 (4)


Vulnerabilidad socioambiental y mortalidad infantil en barrios de Hermosillo, Sonora

Lara-Valencia F, Álvarez-Hernández G, Harlow SD, Denman C, García-Pérez H

Idioma: Ingles.
Referencias bibliográficas: 39
Paginas: 367-374
Archivo PDF: 268.30 Kb.


RESUMEN

Objetivo. Este artículo explora el papel de factores contextuales a nivel de colonia sobre un marcador de salud en la ciudad de Hermosillo, México y discute la importancia de la colaboración entre planificadores urbanos y profesionales de la salud para minimizar el impacto negativo de factores contextuales sobre la salud de la población urbana. Material y métodos. Pocos estudios en México han evaluado las condiciones de salud a escala intra-urbana y su interacción con variables contextuales a nivel de colonia. Utilizando análisis espacial y sistemas de información geográfica, el artículo explora la relación entre mortalidad infantil y un índice de vulnerabilidad socio-ambiental construido para medir factores contextuales urbanos. Resultados. Dos conglomerados de alta mortalidad infantil fueron detectados dentro de colonias caracterizadas por condiciones ambientales relativamente buenas y uno en una colonia con un ambiente pobre. Conclusiones. Los resultados indican la formación de conglomerados de alta mortalidad infantil y una conexión moderada con factores del medio ambiente construido en Hermosillo. Estos resultados apoyan la necesidad de reconectar la salud pública y la planeación urbana como un método para crear ambientes más sanos en las ciudades de México.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Coen S, Ross N. Exploring the material basis for health: characteristics of parks in Montreal Neighborhoods with contrasting health outcomes. Health Place 2006;12:361-371.

  2. Freudenberg N, Galea S, Vlahov D. Beyond urban penalty and urban sprawl: back to living conditions as the focus of urban health. J Community Health 2005;30 (1):1-11.

  3. Diez-Roux A. Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health 1998;88:216-222.

  4. Northridge M, Sclar E. A joint urban planning and public health framework: contributions to health impact assessment. Am J Public Health 2003;93(1):118-121.

  5. Cummins S, Macintyre SA, Davidson S, Ellaway A. Measuring neighborhood social and material context: generation and interpretation of ecological data from routine and non-routine sources. Health Place 2005;11:249-260.

  6. Macintyre S, Ellaway A, Cumming S. Place effects on heath: how can we conceptualize, operationalize and measure them? Soc Sci Med 2002;55:125-139.

  7. Macintyre S, Maciver S, Sooman A. Area, class and health: should be focusing on place or people? J Soc Policy 1993;22(2):213-234.

  8. Diez-Roux A. A glossary for multilevel analysis. Epid Bull 2003;24(3).

  9. Morgenstern H. Ecologic studies in epidemiology: concepts, principles, and methods. A Rev of Public Health 1995;16:61-81.

  10. Diez-Roux A. Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. Am J Public Health 2001;91(11):1783-1789.

  11. Hillemeier M, Lynch J, Harper S, Casper M. Measuring contextual characteristics for community health. Health Services Research 2003;38:6

  12. Yen I, Kaplan G. Poverty area residence and changes in depression and perceived health status: evidence from the Alameda County Study. Int J Epidemiol 1999;28(1):90-94.

  13. Frankenberg E. The effects of access to health care on infant mortality in Indonesia. Health Trans Rev 1995;5:143-163

  14. Rip M, Keen C, Woods D. Intra-urban variations of neonatal and postneonatal mortality in a developing city. Soc Sci Med 1987;25:889-894.

  15. Fayissa B. The determinants of infant and child mortality in developing countries: The case of Sub-Sahara Africa. Rev Black Polit Econ 2001;29(3):83-89

  16. Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP, de Vries S, Spreewenberg P. Green space, urbanity and health: how strong is the relation? J Epidemiol Community Health 2006;60:587-592

  17. Sick-Nielsen T, Bruun-Hansten K. Do green areas affect health? Results from a Danish survey on the use of green areas and health indicators. Health and Place 2007;13(4):839-850

  18. van den Berg AE, Maas J, Verheij RA, Groenewegen PP. Green space as a buffer between stressful life events and health. Soc Sci Med 2010;70(8):1203-1210.

  19. Walker C. The public value of urban parks. The Urban Institute, The Wallace Foundation 2004: 1-8. [Accessed February 15, 2011] Available at: http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/311011_urban_parks.pdf.

  20. Baylina M, Prats M, Ortiz A. Espacios de juego como escenarios educativos urbanos. Ciudades 2005;67:20-24.

  21. Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth RE. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med 2002; 23(2 Suppl):64-73.

  22. Booth KM, Pinkston MM, Carlos-Poston WS. Obesity and the built environment. J Am Diet Assoc 2005;105:S110-S117.

  23. Idrovo A. Three criteria for ecological fallacy. Environmental Health Perspective 2011; 119:a332-a332. [Accessed 2011 December] Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103768

  24. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010. Resultados preliminares. México: INEGI, 2010.

  25. Consejo Nacional de Población. Índices de Desarrollo Humano, 2000. México: CONAPO, 2001.

  26. Bohle H, Downing T, Watts M. Climate change and social vulnerability: the sociology and geography of food insecurity. Global Environmental Change 1994;4:37-48.

  27. Briguglio L. Preliminary study on the construction of an index for ranking countries according to their economic vulnerability. Geneva, Switzerland: UNCTAD/LDC/Misc, 1992:4.

  28. Whitman S, Silva A, Shah A, Ansell D. Diversity and disparity: GIS and small-area analysis in six Chicago neighborhoods. J Medical Syst 2004;28:397-411.

  29. Auffrey C. Mapping disparity in infant mortality: using technology to describe local dimensions of infant deaths. Illn Crises Loss 1999;7:64-76.

  30. Coulton CJ. Vital records: a source for neighborhood indicators. The Urban Institute. [Accessed July 31, 2006] Available at: http://www2.urban.org/nnip/pdf/vitalrec.pdf

  31. Ord JK, Getis A. Local spatial autocorrelation statistics: distribution issues and an Application. Geographical Analysis 1995;27(4):286-306.

  32. Anselin L. Local indicators of spatial association. Geogr Anal 1995;27(2):93-115

  33. Wang, F. Quantitative methods and application in GIS. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis, 2006.

  34. Matte T, Jacobs D. Housing and health: current issues and implications for research and progress. J Urban Health 2000;77:7-25.

  35. Dora C, Phillips M (Ed). Transport, environment and health. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. 2000. [Accessed February 20, 2011] Available at: http://www.euro.who.int/data/assets/pdf_file/0003/87573/E72015.pdf.

  36. Lule G, Ssembatya M. Intention to deliver and pregnancy outcomes, International Development Research Center, [Accesed February 20, 2011] Available at: http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-28387-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html.

  37. Alvarez-Hernandez G, Lara-Valencia F, Castro-Reyes PA, Rascón- Pacheco RA. An analysis of spatial and socio-economic determinants of tuberculosis in Hermosillo, Sonora. 2000-2006. Int J Tuberc Lung Diseas 2010;14(6):708-713

  38. Krieger N, Waterman PD, Chen JT, Soobader MJ, Subramanian SV. Monitoring socioeconomic inequalities in sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis, and violence: geocoding and choice of area-based socioeconomic measures—The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project (US). Pub Health Rep 2003;118:240-260.

  39. Corburn J. Confronting the challenges is reconnecting urban planning and public health. Am J Public Health 2004;94(4):541-545.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com