MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.2105/ajph.90.2.230

Медицинская библиотека · American journal of public health · 2000

"Broken windows" and the risk of gonorrhea.

Cohen D, Spear S, Scribner R, Kissinger P, Mason K, Wildgen J

СтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

OBJECTIVES

We examined the relationships between neighborhood conditions and gonorrhea.

METHODS

We assessed 55 block groups by rating housing and street conditions. We mapped all cases of gonorrhea between 1994 and 1996 and calculated aggregated case rates by block group. We obtained public school inspection reports and assigned findings to the block groups served by the neighborhood schools. A "broken windows" index measured housing quality, abandoned cars, graffiti, trash, and public school deterioration. Using data from the 1990 census and 1995 updates, we determined the association between "broken windows," demographic characteristics, and gonorrhea rates.

RESULTS

The broken windows index explained more of the variance in gonorrhea rates than did a poverty index measuring income, unemployment, and low education. In high-poverty neighborhoods, block groups with high broken windows scores had significantly higher gonorrhea rates than block groups with low broken windows scores (46.6 per 1000 vs 25.8 per 1000; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The robust association of deteriorated physical conditions of local neighborhoods with gonorrhea rates, independent of poverty, merits an intervention trial to test whether the environment has a causal role in influencing high-risk sexual behaviors.

Для цитирования: Cohen D, Spear S, Scribner R, Kissinger P, Mason K, Wildgen J. "Broken windows" and the risk of gonorrhea.. American journal of public health. 2000. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.90.2.230.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.