Classification of homes according to health profile for the purpose of prevention, promotion and recovery resource focus, Medellin, 2004

Authors

  • Elsa M. Vásquez
  • Ilduara Peña
  • Ángela M. Segura

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfnsp.52

Keywords:

principal components, clusters analysis, life conditions, homes

Abstract

Objective: to obtain a health profile to classify homes of Medellín city, according to similarities due to life and health conditions. Materials and methods: for the creation of a health profile, information was taken from the data collected in the Quality of Life Survey, Medellín, 2004, where variables referring to life conditions and health determinants were selected. An analysis of mean components was made to choose those that explained the greater variability among homes, then a cluster analysis in 2 steps was performed to group the homes according to their life and health conditions. Results: the observed correlations appeared in the expected directions. A total of 12 components explain 69% of the variability of the data, contributing to a greater proportion of variability the variables of life conditions. In Medellín, 5 types of homes were identified sharing the same conditions of life and health. Conclusion: multivariant techniques allow to conclude that Medellín’s home classification into 5 types regarding their determinants of health provides opportunities to make formulation of intervention programs at the population level possible.
|Abstract
= 206 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))
= 24 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

(1). O.M.S. Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Orga-nization as adopted by the International Health Conference. En: Official Records of the World Health Organization. New York; O.M.S:1946. p. 100.

(2). Gakidou EM, Frenk, J. Definición y medición de las desigualdades en salud: una metodología basada en la distribución de la esperan-za de salud.; Bull World Health Organ, 2000; 78 (1): 42–54.

(3). Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health promotion planning: an educa-tional and environmental approach. Mountain View, California: Mayfield; 1991.

(4). Aldrich TE, Environmental epidemiology and risk assessment. New York; Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1993, p 274.

(5). Green L. Refocusing health care systems to address both individual care and population health. Clin Invest Med, 1994;17:133-141.

(6). Tousignant P. Impact de la reconfiguration du réseau sur la santé et le bienêtre de la population. Montreal: Direction de la Santé Publique 1995. p 91

(7). Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Estrategias para la salud de la población: Inversión en la salud de los canadienses. En: Salud de la población, Conceptos y estrategias para políticas pú-blicas saludables: La perspectiva canadiense.Washington: OPS; 2000. p. 8 - 34.

(8). Warford J. Environment, health, and sustainable development: The role of economic instruments and policies. Bull World Health Organ, 1995; 73:387-395.

(9). Castaño E, Correa A, Salazar S. Departamento Administrativo de Planeación Metropolitana de Medellín. Reestimación del Indicador de Calidad de Vida para la ciudad de Medellín. Medellín: De-partamento Administrativo de Planeación Metropolitana; 2002.

(10). Kuhfeld WF, Sarle, WS, Young, FW. Methods for generating model estimates in the prinqual macro. In: SAS Users Group International Conference Procedings; 1985; SAS Institute; 1985. p.962 - 91.

(11). Johnson R. Elementary statistics. Belmont: Duxbury, cop; 1996.

(12). Everitt BL, S. Leese, M. Cluster Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2001.

(13). Alazraqui MM, E. Spinelli, H. Guevel C. Desigualdades en salud y desigualdades sociales: un abordaje epidemiológico en un municipio urbano de Argentina. Rev Panam Salud Pública. 2007;1(21):1 - 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1020-49892007000100001

(14). Odoi AW, R. Emo, M. et al. Inequalities in neighbourhood socioeconomic characteristics: potential evidence-based for neigh-bourhood health planning. Int J Health Geogr. 2005;4(20):1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-072X-4-20

(15). Kaltenthaler EM, Beverley, C. Population-based health indexes: a systematic review. Health Policy 2004; 68:245–255. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2003.10.005

(16). Department of the Environment (DETR) (2001) 2000 Depriva-tion Index: A Review of Approaches and a Matrix of Results. (HMSO, London.)

(17). Takano TN. An analysis of health levels and various indicators of urban environments for Healthy Cities projects. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2001;55:263-270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.55.4.263

(18). Starfield B. Equity and health: a perspective on nonrandom distribution of health in the population. Pan Am J Public Health 2002;12(6):384-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1020-49892002001200004

(19). Di Virgilio M, Orellana L. La heterogeneidad urbana revisitada. In: V Congreso de Antropología Social; 1997; La Plata – Argen-tina. La Plata, Argentina; 1997.

(20). Batthyány k. ¿Quienes son responsables de los cuidados?, fami-lias y tipo de hogares. En: Cuidado infantil y trabajo: ¿un desafio exclusivamente femenino? Montevideo; 2004. p. 98.

Published

2008-10-06

How to Cite

1.
Vásquez EM, Peña I, Segura Ángela M. Classification of homes according to health profile for the purpose of prevention, promotion and recovery resource focus, Medellin, 2004. Rev. Fac. Nac. Salud Pública [Internet]. 2008 Oct. 6 [cited 2025 Dec. 15];26(1):1-13. Available from: https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/fnsp/article/view/52

Issue

Section

Research