| Literature DB >> 28117751 |
Lucie Vialard1, Clara Squiban2, Gilles Riveau, Emmanuel Hermann, Florence Fournet3, Gérard Salem4,5, Ellen E Foley6.
Abstract
This study contributes to the literature about the effects of space and place on health by introducing a socio-territorial approach to urban health disparities in West Africa. It explores how urban spaces, specifically neighbourhoods, are shaped by social and economic relations and strategies of territorial control. We examine the potential influence of socio-territorial processes on vulnerability to disease, access to medical care, healthscapes, and illness experiences. Our research was conducted in Senegal and relied on a mixed methods design. We identified four neighbourhoods that represent the socio-spatial heterogeneity of the city of Saint-Louis and utilized the following methods: geographic and anthropological field research, household surveys, health knowledge and behaviour surveys, clinical exams, and illness interviews. Our results highlight the socio-territorial processes at work in each neighbourhood, clinical findings on three health measures (overweight, high blood pressure, and hyperglycaemia) and health experiences of individuals with hypertension or type II diabetes. We found significant differences in the prevalence of the three health measures in the study sites, while experiences managing hypertension and diabetes were similar. We conclude that a socio-territorial approach offers insight into the complex constellation of forces that produce health disparities in urban settings.Entities:
Keywords: West Africa; diabetes; health disparities; hypertension; socio-territorial approach; urban health
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28117751 PMCID: PMC5295356 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph14010106
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Location of the study areas in Saint-Louis.
Figure 2Main characteristics of the surveyed households.
Characteristics of the socio-medical survey participants.
| Variables | All Participants | Guet Ndar | Léona | Ndioloffène | Pikine sor Diagne | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 815 | 214 | 186 | 224 | 191 | |||
| Age of participants | 35–39 | 196 (24) | 49 (22.9) | 38 (20.4) | 59 (26.3) | 50 (26.2) | N.S |
| 40–44 | 181 (22.2) | 40 (18.7) | 45 (24.2) | 46 (20.5) | 50 (26.2) | ||
| 45–49 | 133 (16.3) | 37 (17.3) | 27 (14.5) | 35 (15.6) | 34 (17.8) | ||
| 50–54 | 155 (19) | 41 (19.2) | 41 (22) | 44 (19.6) | 29 (15.2) | ||
| ≥55 | 146 (17.9) | 47 (21.9) | 32 (17.2) | 40 (17.9) | 27 (14.1) | ||
| Sex of participants | Women | 650 (79.8) | 176 (82.2) | 143 (76.9) | 185 (82.6) | 146 (76.4) | N.S |
| Men | 165 (21.2) | 38 (17.8) | 43 (23.1) | 39 (17.4) | 45 (23.6) | ||
| Education level | Not educated | 345 (42.3) | 148 (69.2) | 52 (28) | 48 (21.4) | 97 (50.8) | |
| Length of residence | Born in Saint-Louis | 649 (79.6) | 204 (95.3) | 144 (77.4) | 186 (83) | 115 (60.2) | |
| Neighbourhood satisfaction | Wish to stay in their neighbourhood | 394 (48.3) | 35 (16.4) | 91 (48.9) | 128 (57.1) | 140 (73.3) | |
| Perception of health status | Poor | 191 (23.4) | 42 (19.6) | 42 (22.6) | 37 (16.5) | 70 (36.6) | |
| Correct | 270 (33.1) | 77 (36) | 43 (23.1) | 92 (41.1) | 58 (30.4) | ||
| Good to excellent | 348 (42.7) | 95 (44.4) | 98 (52.7) | 92 (41.1) | 63 (33) | ||
Percentages between parentheses; N.S: Not significant.
Figure 3Characteristics of illness interview participants.
Figure 4Aerial view of Guet Ndar along the Atlantic Ocean, showing the high building density in contrast to the Island district on the other side of the river (Google Earth®).
Figure 5Location of the health care facilities in Saint-Louis (2014).
Categorization of the four studied neighbourhoods by socio-territorial organization and health status.
| Neighbourhood level | Precolonial district: traditional Wolof fishing neighbourhood | Precolonial village of fishermen and farmers: late integration to Saint-Louis as an administrative district (1980s) | Created during the colonial period (beginning of the 19th century): socially and ethnically mixed neighbourhood with some gentrification | Created during the colonial period (mid-20th century): middle to upper class households, historically served as colonial civil servants | |||
| Individual level | 96.20% | 60.50% | 83.00% | 78.70% | |||
| Neighbourhood level | Very high | Low | Low | Medium | |||
| Very good | Poor | Very poor | Good | ||||
| Household access to water and electricity | Ongoing plans to improve for municipal water and electric supply systems | Household access to water and electricity | Household access to water and electricity | ||||
| Household level | 58.50% | 34.20% | 20.30% | 19.50% | |||
| 31.30% | 33.70% | 28.90% | 38.60% | ||||
| 10.20% | 32.10% | 50.80% | 41.90% | ||||
| Individual level | 69.20% | 50.80% | 21.40% | 28.00% | |||
| Neighbourhood level | “There is a boundary between Saint-Louis and Guet Ndar.” | “They are sectarian people. It is a neighbourhood of fishermen: they are very close.” | “The neighbourhood is one the hubs of Saint-Louis’ intelligentsia.” | “It is a neighbourhood of intellectuals. […] in Léona, we are urban dwellers, with proper urban practices.” | |||
| Neighbourhood level | Cooperation between the local council and the municipal government which directs external funds to Guet Ndar. But lack of legitimacy of the local council among residents who use their own networks to finance neighbourhood projects. | No representation of Sor Diagne residents in the local council. Modest and sporadic projects of local development led by community associations. | Omnipresence of powerbrokers who govern the local council according to their own political ends. They secure significant amounts of external and internal funding for major projects. | Omnipresence of the local council which coordinates local actors for various large projects. Increasing autonomy from the municipal government thanks to tremendous fundraising capacity. | |||
| Neighbourhood level | Several days of free medical consultations have been organized, and an ambulance was purchased by external donors through a key powerbroker. | A small dispensary was built with external financing. Free medical consultations have been organized for non-communicable diseases screening, implemented by the greater Pikine council at the Sor Daga health post. | Several days of free medical consultations and follow-up for chronic disease patients have been organized and financed by local powerbrokers. | Several campaigns for health prevention and follow-up for chronic disease patients were funded by international donors. Renovation of the local health post was paid for by external funding. | |||
| Neighbourhood level | 77.10% | 56.50% | 59.80% | 56.50% | |||
| 42.50% | 32.50% | 38.40% | 28.50% | ||||
| 12.60% | 6.80% | 8.90% | 7.50% | ||||
Health status of socio-medical survey participants.
| Health Indicators | Full Sample | Guet Ndar | Léona | Ndioloffène | Pikine Sor Diagne | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 815 | 214 | 186 | 224 | 191 | ||
| Overweight | 512 (62.8) | 165 (77.1) | 105 (56.5) | 134 (59.8) | 108 (56.5) | |
| High blood pressure | 292 (35.8) | 91 (42.5) | 53 (28.5) | 86 (38.4) | 62 (32.5) | |
| Hyperglycaemia | 74 (9.1) | 27 (12.6) | 14 (7.5) | 20 (8.9) | 13 (6.8) | N.S |
Percentages between parentheses; N.S: Not significant.
Statistical associations between contributing factors and health status.
| Sex | Female | 56.9 | 22.8 | 69.2 | 13.1 | 52.7 | 24.2 | 54.9 | 27.7 | 49.7 | 26.7 | |||||
| Male | 5.8 | 14.0 | 7.9 | 9.8 | 3.2 | 18.3 | 4.9 | 12.5 | 6.8 | 16.2 | ||||||
| Age | 35–39 | 11.8 | 12.3 | 15.9 | 7.0 | N.S | 7.0 | 13.4 | 10.7 | 15.6 | 13.1 | 13.1 | N.S | |||
| 40–44 | 14.2 | 8.0 | 15.0 | 3.7 | 14.5 | 9.7 | 13.8 | 6.7 | 13.6 | 12.6 | ||||||
| 45–49 | 10.2 | 6.1 | 13.6 | 3.7 | 8.6 | 5.9 | 8.9 | 6.7 | 9.4 | 8.4 | ||||||
| 50–54 | 12.8 | 6.3 | 13.6 | 5.6 | 11.3 | 10.8 | 14.3 | 5.4 | 11.5 | 3.7 | ||||||
| ≥55 | 13.6 | 4.3 | 19.2 | 2.8 | 14.0 | 3.2 | 12.1 | 5.8 | 8.9 | 5.2 | ||||||
| Education level | Educated | 32.3 | 23.1 | 21.0 | 9.3 | N.S | 34.4 | 29.0 | N.S | 46.9 | 31.7 | N.S | 25.7 | 22.5 | N.S | |
| Not educated | 29.4 | 12.9 | 55.6 | 13.6 | 18.3 | 9.7 | 12.9 | 8.5 | 30.4 | 20.4 | ||||||
| Economic status of household | Poor | 21.3 | 11.2 | N.S | 44.9 | 12.1 | N.S | 10.8 | 7.5 | N.S | 9.8 | 10.7 | N.S | 18.8 | 14.1 | N.S |
| Middle class | 21.1 | 12.0 | 23.8 | 7.9 | 23.1 | 14.0 | 19.6 | 11.2 | 17.8 | 15.7 | ||||||
| Upper class | 19.5 | 13.6 | 6.5 | 2.8 | 21.0 | 21.0 | 30.4 | 18.3 | 19.9 | 13.1 | ||||||
| Sex | Female | 30.9 | 48.8 | 36.9 | 45.3 | N.S | 23.7 | 53.2 | N.S | 32.6 | 50.0 | N.S | 29.3 | 47.1 | ||
| Male | 4.9 | 14.8 | 5.6 | 12.1 | 4.8 | 16.7 | 5.8 | 11.6 | 3.1 | 19.9 | ||||||
| Age | 35–39 | 4.5 | 19.5 | 6.5 | 16.4 | 2.7 | 17.7 | 4.9 | 21.4 | 3.7 | 22.5 | |||||
| 40–44 | 6.7 | 15.5 | 7.0 | 11.7 | 5.4 | 18.8 | 8.0 | 12.5 | 19.9 | 6.3 | ||||||
| 45–49 | 4.7 | 11.7 | 5.1 | 12.1 | 4.8 | 9.7 | 2.7 | 12.9 | 6.3 | 11.5 | ||||||
| 50–54 | 8.8 | 10.2 | 10.3 | 8.9 | 5.9 | 16.1 | 10.7 | 8.9 | 7.9 | 7.3 | ||||||
| ≥55 | 10.8 | 7.1 | 13.6 | 8.4 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 12.1 | 5.8 | 8.4 | 5.8 | ||||||
| Education level | Educated | 19.6 | 35.7 | N.S | 12.6 | 17.8 | N.S | 18.8 | 44.6 | N.S | 30.8 | 47.8 | N.S | 15.2 | 33.0 | N.S |
| Not educated | 16.0 | 26.4 | 29.9 | 39.3 | 8.6 | 19.4 | 7.6 | 13.8 | 17.3 | 33.5 | ||||||
| Economic status of household | Poor | 12.5 | 20.0 | N.S | 26.2 | 30.8 | N.S | 3.8 | 14.5 | N.S | 8.0 | 12.5 | N.S | 11.0 | 22.0 | N.S |
| Middle class | 11.5 | 21.6 | 10.3 | 21.5 | 12.4 | 24.7 | 13.8 | 17.0 | 9.4 | 24.1 | ||||||
| Upper class | 11.3 | 21.8 | 5.1 | 4.2 | 11.3 | 30.6 | 16.5 | 32.1 | 12.0 | 20.9 | ||||||
| Sex | Woman | 8.0 | 71.8 | 11.2 | 71.0 | N.S | 6.5 | 70.4 | N.S | 8.5 | 74.1 | N.S | 5.2 | 71.2 | N.S | |
| Man | 1.0 | 19.0 | 1.4 | 16.4 | 0.5 | 21.5 | 0.4 | 17.0 | 1.6 | 22.0 | ||||||
| Age | 35–39 | 1.2 | 22.8 | 2.3 | 20.6 | N.S | 0.5 | 19.9 | 1.3 | 25.0 | N.S | 0.5 | 25.7 | N.S | ||
| 40–44 | 1.5 | 20.7 | 1.4 | 17.3 | 1.1 | 23.1 | 1.3 | 19.2 | 2.1 | 24.1 | ||||||
| 45–49 | 1.8 | 14.5 | 3.3 | 14.0 | 1.1 | 13.4 | 1.3 | 14.3 | 1.6 | 16.2 | ||||||
| 50–54 | 1.7 | 17.3 | 2.8 | 16.4 | 1.1 | 21.0 | 1.8 | 17.9 | 1.0 | 14.1 | ||||||
| ≥55 | 2.5 | 15.5 | 2.8 | 19.2 | 2.7 | 14.5 | 3.1 | 14.7 | 1.0 | 13.1 | ||||||
| Education level | Educated | 4.8 | 50.8 | N.S | 2.3 | 28.0 | N.S | 4.8 | 59.1 | N.S | 6.7 | 71.9 | N.S | 5.2 | 43.5 | N.S |
| Not educated | 4.0 | 38.3 | 10.3 | 58.9 | 1.6 | 26.3 | 2.2 | 19.2 | 1.6 | 49.2 | ||||||
| Economic status of household | Poor | 2.9 | 29.6 | N.S | 8.4 | 48.6 | N.S | 0.0 | 18.3 | N.S | 2.2 | 18.3 | N.S | 0.5 | 32.5 | |
| Middle class | 2.3 | 30.9 | 1.9 | 29.9 | 4.8 | 32.3 | 1.3 | 29.5 | 1.6 | 32.5 | ||||||
| Upper class | 3.7 | 29.6 | 1.9 | 7.5 | 2.7 | 39.8 | 5.4 | 43.3 | 4.7 | 28.3 | ||||||