4.6 Article

Selective internal migration. Does it explain Glasgow's worsening mortality record?

期刊

HEALTH & PLACE
卷 17, 期 6, 页码 1212-1217

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.08.004

关键词

Mortality; Selective migration; Glasgow; Scotland; Inequality

资金

  1. Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorates [CZG/2/400]
  2. ESRC/JISC
  3. Scottish Funding Council
  4. Chief Scientist Office
  5. Scottish Government
  6. ESRC [ES/G007438/1, ES/I037652/1, ES/G020787/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. MRC [MC_U130059823] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Chief Scientist Office [CZG/2/400, SPHSU2] Funding Source: researchfish
  9. Economic and Social Research Council [ES/G007438/1, ES/G020787/1, ES/I037652/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  10. Medical Research Council [MC_U130059823] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mortality difference between Glasgow and the rest of Scotland has been increasing and mortality rates are higher than Glasgow's excess deprivation would suggest. One plausible explanation for this excess is selective migration. A sample of 137,073 individuals aged 15 to 64 in 1991 from the Scottish Longitudinal Study was used to test this explanation. Three geographic areas were compared: Glasgow; Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh cities combined and the rest of Scotland. The impact of selective migration was assessed by calculating age and sex standardised mortality rates for 2001/03 by residence in 2001 and by residence in 1991. Glasgow experienced the greatest loss of population (-7.1%) between 1991 and 2001 but this was not strongly related to deprivation. It had the highest mortality at baseline and the difference between it and the other areas increased over the ten years. This pattern was not significantly affected by calculating death rates according to area of residence at 1991 or in 2001. Our results suggest that the increasing difference in mortality rates between Glasgow and the rest of Scotland over this period was probably not caused by selective migration. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据