1,437 research outputs found
Letter from J. E. Gavin to Louis C. Cramton regarding Sale of Bright Angel Trail
No full textLetter from J. E. Gavin to Louis C. Cramton regarding the Bright Angel Trail controversy, including newspaper clipping
Letter from B. F. Gavin (for Carl Hayden) to Stephen Mather, National Park Service
No full textLetter from Mrs. B. F. Gavin to Stephen Mather regarding the sale of Bass properties to the Santa Fe Railroad Company
The independent contribution of neighborhood disadvantage and individual-level socioeconomic position to self-reported oral health: a multilevel analysis
No full text© Blackwell Munksgaard 2007ObjectivesTo examine the association between neighborhood disadvantage and individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP) and self-reported oral health.MethodsA population-based cross-sectional study conducted in 2003 among males and females aged 43-57 years. The sample comprised 2915 individuals and 60 neighborhoods and was selected using a stratified two-stage cluster design. Data were collected using a mail survey (69.4% response rate). Neighborhood disadvantage was measured using a census-based composite index, and individual-level SEP was measured using education and household income. Oral health was indicated by self-reports of the impact of oral conditions on quality of life (0 = none or minor, 1 = severe), self-rated oral health (0 = excellent-good, 1 = fair/poor) and missing teeth (measured as a quantitative outcome). Data were analyzed using multilevel modeling.ResultsAfter adjusting for age, sex, education, and household income, residents of socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods were significantly more likely than those in more advantaged neighborhoods to indicate negative impacts of oral conditions on quality of life, to assess their oral health as fair or poor, and to report greater tooth loss. In addition, respondents with low levels of education and those from a low income household reported poorer oral health for each outcome independent of neighborhood disadvantage.ConclusionsThe socioeconomic characteristics of neighborhoods are important for oral health over and above the socioeconomic characteristics of the people living in those neighborhoods. Policies and interventions to improve population oral health should be directed at the social, physical and infrastructural characteristics of places as well as individuals (i.e. the traditional target of intervention efforts).Gavin Turrell, Anne E. Sanders, Gary D. Slade, A. John Spencer, Wagner Marcene
Socioeconomic disadvantage and the purchase of takeaway food : a multilevel analysis
No full textThis study examined relationships between individual-level socioeconomic position, area-level disadvantage, characteristics of the takeaway food environment, and the purchase of takeaway food. ‘Takeaway’ is conceptualised as foods or meals that are prepared and purchased outside of the home, and ready for immediate consumption either at the place of purchase or elsewhere. The analytic sample comprised 1001 households and 50 small areas in Brisbane, Australia. Takeaway food was purchased more regularly by high-income householders and those with higher levels of education. Residents of advantaged areas purchased takeaway food more regularly, although area differences attenuated to the null after adjustment for individual-level compositional factors. Number of takeaway shops in the local food environment, and road distance to the closest takeaway shop, were largely unrelated to the purchase of takeaway food. We conclude that there is little evidence that takeaway food purchasing in Brisbane is influenced by area-level socioeconomic disadvantage or features of the takeaway food environment. Rather, it seems that what matters most in terms of influencing the decision or capacity of Brisbane residents to purchase takeaway food are the socioeconomic characteristics of individuals and their households. The findings of this and previous analyses of the Brisbane Food Study data suggest that policy and health promotion aimed at improving the diets of residents and reducing dietary inequalities between socioeconomic groups should focus on people more so than places.\ud
\u
Socioeconomic Position Across the Lifecourse and Cognitive Function in Late Middle Age
No full texthttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/51493/1/Turrell G, Socioeconomic Position Across the Lifecourse, 2002.pd
Short-term functional health and well-being after marital separation: Does initiator status make a difference?
No full textThe authors investigated the health consequences of marital separation and whether the partners who initiated the separation had better health than those who did not. The data came from the Households, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) panel study (2001-2007), comprising an analytic sample of 1,786 men and 2,068 women who were in their first marriages in 2001. For participants who separated, the authors distinguished between self-initiated, partner-initiated, and jointly initiated separations. Using linear random-intercept models, they examined scores on the 8 physical and mental health dimensions of Short Form 36, with scale scores ranging from 0 to 100. The results indicated that in general, men who separated had a decline in health, although this was more pronounced for mental dimensions than for physical dimensions. Among separated men, those whose partner initiated the separation had poorer mental health than those for whom the separation was self-initiated or jointly initiated (-4.61). Women's physical health improved with separation, but their mental health declined. For separated women, those whose partner initiated the separation had lower scores on the general health (-5.39), role-emotional (-11.08), and mental health (-7.18) scales than women who self-initiated separation. The health consequences of separation were less severe for self- or jointly initiated separations, suggesting that not all marital dissolutions are equally bad for health
Confidence to cook vegetables and the buying habits of Australian households
No full textCooking skills are emphasized in nutrition promotion but their distribution among population subgroups and relationship to dietary behavior is researched by few population-based studies. This study examined the relationships between confidence to cook, sociodemographic characteristics, and household vegetable purchasing. This cross-sectional study of 426 randomly selected households in Brisbane, Australia, used a validated questionnaire to assess household vegetable purchasing habits and the confidence to cook of the person who most often prepares food for these households. The mutually adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of lacking confidence to cook were assessed across a range of demographic subgroups using multiple logistic regression models. Similarly, mutually adjusted mean vegetable purchasing scores were calculated using multiple linear regression for different population groups and for respondents with varying confidence levels. Lacking confidence to cook using a variety of techniques was more common among respondents with less education (OR 3.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 10.75) and was less common among respondents who lived with minors (OR 0.22; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.53) and other adults (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.78). Lack of confidence to prepare vegetables was associated with being male (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.24 to 4.08), low education (OR 6.60; 95% CI 2.08 to 20.91), lower household income (OR 2.98; 95% CI 1.02 to 8.72) and living with other adults (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.98). Households bought a greater variety of vegetables on a regular basis when the main chef was confident to prepare them (difference: 18.60; 95% CI 14.66 to 22.54), older (difference: 8.69; 95% CI 4.92 to 12.47), lived with at least one other adult (difference: 5.47; 95% CI 2.82 to 8.12) or at least one minor (difference: 2.86; 95% CI 0.17 to 5.55). Cooking skills may contribute to socioeconomic dietary differences, and may be a useful strategy for promoting fruit and vegetable consumption, particularly among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups.\ud
\u
- …
