Self-rated health status and its implications.Population study of pregnant women in Brno


Authors: M. Bouchalová 1;  L. Kukla 2;  P. Okrajek 3
Authors‘ workplace: Výzkumné pracoviště preventivní a sociální pediatrie, LF MU, Brno (v současné době je zrušené) 1;  Centrum pro výzkum toxických látek v prostředí, RECETOX, Přírodovědecká fakulta MU, Brno 2;  Ústav matematiky a statistiky, Přírodovědecká fakulta MU, Brno 3
Published in: Čes. Gynek.2012, 77, č. 6 s. 524-539

Overview

Objective:
The subject of self-rated health status of women in fertile age has not yet been investigated in our country. As our study is longitudinal and the same questions-questionnaire items regarding self-rated health of the monitored women are repeated in each investigation phase, we are able to not only find out which factors are related but also verify how this relationship evolves with their ageing, life situation changes and growing up of their children.

Setting:
Research Centre for Toxic Compounds in the Environment, Masaryk University, Brno.

Methods:
Pregnant women from the Brno part of ELSPAC study rated their health status for the time period before becoming pregnant, for the first months of pregnancy and for the half of pregnancy.

On the four-grade scale of self-reported health status the associations with their personal health-history (from prenatal questionnaires and prenatal and obstetrician health-care network) were investigated.

Results:
The monitored women rated their pre-pregnancy health-status increasingly worse with increasing age and weight, increasing morbidity, increasing medicine consumption and with increasing number of injuries. Also their parents, siblings and children were more often ill and more often admitted in hospitals as in-patients. These women required more specialized care starting in their childhood, suffered more from infectious diseases, operations, injuries, stresses and break-ups of their original families.

Their misunderstanding with parents was occurred with higher frequency, their upbringing was more strict, they suffered from school failures more often, they had problems with the police and premature pregnancies.

According to the mother’s education, especially the daughters of college educated women felt subjectively worse. Also women with basic level of education, problems at work, financial troubles, those who had many children and less adults in their household rated their health worse. They were also unemployed and dissatisfied with their housing situation. In partner relationships conflicts were present frequently including violence. They also suffered from depression, anxiety, neuroses, phobias and social isolation more often. They also attempted to become pregnant longer than other women and tolerated pregnancy worse. They noted more changes to themselves and experiences more stress. The worse their feelings were during the first months of pregnancy, the higher frequency of pregnancy difficulties, delivery pathologies and post-natal complications were present according to the health-status documentation.

Conclusion:
This paper brings a whole series of original findings of factors associated with self-rated health-status. The socio-economic position in the families of their own had a more substantial influence on the health-status of the monitored women compared to the position in the families where they grew up. The indicators – e.g. stress, social isolation, work, social support, education, income and household created gradients on the health-status scale which were overall highly significant.

Key words:
self-rated health, pregnancy, morbidity, childhood, partnership, SES, social network, education, social support, outcome of pregnancy.


Sources

1. Agyemang, C., van Hooijdonk, C., et al. The association of neighbourhood psychological stressors and self-rated health in Amsterdam The Netherlands. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2007, 61, 12, p. 1042–1049.

2. Ahnquist, J., Fredlunt, P., Wamala, SP. Is cumulative exposure to economic hardships more hazardous to women´s health than men´s? A 16 year follow-up study of the Swedish Survey of Living Conditions. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2007, 61, 4, p. 331–336.

3. Bambra, C., Eikemo, TA. Welfare state regimes, unemployment and health: a comparative study of the relationship between unemployment and self-reported health in 23 European countries.J Epidemiol Community Health, 2009, 63, p. 92–98.

4. Berkman, L. The role of social relations in health promotion. Psychosom Med, 1995, 57, 3, p 245–254.

5. Batty, CD., Morton, SMB., et al. The Aberdeen children of the 50s cohort study: Background, methods and follow-up information on a new resource for the study of life course and intergenerational influences on health. Paed Perinatal Epidemiol, 2004, 18, p. 221–239.

6. Case, A., Lubotsky, D., Paxson, C. Economic status and health in childhood: The origins of the gradient. Am Econom Rev, 2002, 92, p. 1308–1334.

7. Cummins, S., Stafford, M., et al. Neighbourhood environment and its association with self-rated health: evidence from Scotland and England. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2005, 59, 3, p. 207–213.

8. Delpierre, C., Lauwers-Cances, V., et al. Using self-rated health for analysing social inequalities in health: a risk for underestimating the gap between socioeconomic groups? J Epidemiol Community Health, 2009, 63, p. 426–432.

9. Drever, F., Doran, T., Whitehead, M. Exploring the relation between class, gender, and self rated general health using the new socioeconomic classification. A study using data from the 2001 census. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2004, 58, p. 590–596.

10. Erikson, M., Lindström, B., Lilja, J. A sense of coherence and health. Salutogenesis in a societal context: Aland, a special case?J Epidemiol Community Health, 2007, 61, 9, p. 684–688.

11. Galobardes, B., Shaw, M., et al. Indicators of socioeconomic position (Part I). J Epidemiol Community Health, 2006, 60, 1, p. 7–12.

12. Harkonmaki, K., Korkeila, K., et al. Childhood adversities as a predictor of disability retirement. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2007, 61, 6, p. 479–484.

13. Hnilica, K. K socioekonomickým determinantám subjektivního zdraví. Psychologie v ekonomické praxi, 2007, 1–2, s. 1–8.

14. Holčík, J., Koupilová, I. Sociální determinanty zdraví. Základní fakta a doporučení pro praxi v kontextu programu Zdravá města. Čas Lék čes, 2001, 140, 1, s. 3–7.

15. Holčík, J. Podpora zdraví a její teoretická východiska. Hygiena, 2008, Suppl. 1, s. 4–7.

16. Hyde, M., Jakub, H., et al. Comparison of the effects of low child-hood socioeconomic position and low adulthood socioeconomic position on self-rated health in four European studies. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2006, 60, 10, p. 882–886.

17. Kalff, AC., Kroes, M., et al. Neighbourhood level and individual SES effects on child problem behaviour: a multilevel analysis.J Epidemiol Community Health, 2001, 55, p. 246–250.

18. Mensah, FK., Hobcraft, J. Childhood deprivation, health and development: Associations with adult health in the 1958 and 1970 British prospective birth cohort studies. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2008, 62, 7, p. 599–606.

19. Navarro, V., Shi, L. The political context of social inequalities and health. Social Science and Medicine, 2001, 52, p. 481–491.

20. Olsen, KM., Dahl, SA. Health differences between European countries. Social Sci Med, 2007, 64, p. 1665–1678.

21. Rážová, J., Csémy, L., et al. Mladí lidé a zdraví. 27. ostravské dny dětí a dorostu, Praha 1999, s. 99–114 (sborník ref.).

22. Rážová, J., Csémy, L., et al. Mladí lidé a zdraví v mezinárodním srovnání – Děti a rodina. 28. ostravské dny dětí a dorostu, Praha 2000, s. 112–114 (sborník ref.).

23. Spencer, N. Does material disadvantage explain the increased risk of adverse health, educational, and behavioural outcomes among children in lone parent households in Britain? A cross sectional study. J Epidemiol Community Health, 2005, 59, 2, p. 152–157.

24. Šolcová, I., Kebza, V. Typy chování, typy osobnosti a jejich vztah ke zdraví. Čs Psychol, 2006, 50, s. 419–430.

25. Šolcová, I., Kebza, V. Subjektivní zdraví: současný stav poznatků a výsledky dvou českých studií. Čs Psychol, 2006, 50, s. 1–15.

26. Šplíchalová, A., Šlachtová, H., et al. Vliv socioekonomických faktorů na zdraví v epidemiologických studiích. Hygiena, 2007, 52, 2, s. 51–58.

27. ÚZIS ČR. Aktuální informace 2009.

28. Wilkinson, R., Marmot, R. Social determinants of health: The solid facts. Copenhagen: WHO, 2003.

29. Zaremba, V., Zavázalová, H., et al. Vnímané zdraví a vlastní péče o ně u mladších seniorů. Plzeň. lék. Sborn., 2006, 72, s. 51–58.

30. Zavázalová, H., Zikmundová, K., Zaremba, V. Způsob života seniorů v kontextu subjektivně vnímaného zdraví. Geriatria, 2006, 12, 2, s. 55–61.

31. Zikmundová, K., Zavázalová, H., et al. Subjektivně zjištěný stav osob ve věku 50 až 64 let v České republice. Data z dotazníkových šetření v roce 2006. Geriatria, 2008, 14, 1, s. 13–18.

Labels
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicine

Article was published in

Czech Gynaecology

Issue 6

2012 Issue 6

Most read in this issue

This topic is also in:


Login
Forgotten password

Don‘t have an account?  Create new account

Forgotten password

Enter the email address that you registered with. We will send you instructions on how to set a new password.

Login

Don‘t have an account?  Create new account