| Literature DB >> 29330163 |
Naoki Kondo1, Yoshiki Ishikawa1.
Abstract
Editor's note The study reported in this article examines a health intervention that uses gendered stereotypes of the nursing profession and suggestive uniforms that play on women's sexuality to encourage people to engage in health checkups. The intervention was not under the control of the authors and the study was approved by an institutional research ethics board. The Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health condemns the use of sexism, gender and professional stereotypes and other forms of discriminatory or exploitative behaviour for any purpose, including health promotion programs. In light of concerns raised about this paper (see eLetters with this paper), we are conducting an audit of our review process and will put in place measures to ensure that the material we publish condemns sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination and embodies principles of inclusion and non-discrimination.Entities:
Keywords: Japan; adults; behavior sciences; health disparity; social epidemiology
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29330163 PMCID: PMC5909741 DOI: 10.1136/jech-2017-209943
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health ISSN: 0143-005X Impact factor: 3.710
Figure 1Differences in staff costumes between the intervention and control sessions. (A) Intervention: with young female staffs wearing short-skirted nurse costumes (B) Control: with nurses and staffs dressed normally.
Basic characteristics of those who took health check-ups by operation types
| Men | Women | |||||
| Intervention | Control | P value | Intervention | Control | P value | |
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |||
| Age (years) | ||||||
| ≤39 | 215 (21.8) | 839 (24.4) | 0.18 | 90 (11.3) | 460 (15.0) | 0.01 |
| 40–59 | 323 (32.8) | 1050 (30.6) | 247 (31.1) | 1004 (32.7) | ||
| ≥60 | 448 (45.4) | 1547 (45.0) | 458 (57.6) | 1607 (52.3) | ||
| Socioeconomic status | ||||||
| Type of health insurance programme | ||||||
| National Health Insurance | 432 (69.1) | 1164 (67.5) | 0.46 | 385 (70.6) | 1017 (64.1) | 0.006 |
| Other | 193 (30.9) | 560 (32.5) | 160 (29.4) | 569 (35.9) | ||
| Job status | ||||||
| No job | 225 (22.7) | 659 (19.3) | 0.01 | 104 (13.1) | 249 (8.1) | <0.001 |
| Home maker | 4 (0.4) | 7 (0.2) | 333 (41.9) | 1220 (40.0) | ||
| Part-time job | 53 (5.3) | 182 (5.3) | 94 (11.8) | 349 (11.5) | ||
| Employed, self-employed, manager | 407 (41.0) | 1602 (46.9) | 97 (12.2) | 434 (14.2) | ||
| Student, other | 304 (30.6) | 967 (28.3) | 166 (20.9) | 795 (26.1) | ||
| Last health check-up | ||||||
| 0–3 years ago | 573 (81.9) | 1958 (80.1) | 0.30 | 78.53 (1693) | 78.49(1) | 0.98 |
| ≥4 years ago | 127 (18.1) | 486 (19.9) | 21.47 (464) | 21.51 (0) | ||
Prevalence ratio (95% CIs) of being of low socioeconomic status for those using health check-up services in intervention sessions (with nurse costumes) compared with control sessions (without nurse costumes)
| Low socioeconomic status measured as | ||||
| Having National Health Insurance | Not having job | |||
| Complete case | Imputed* | Complete case | Imputed* | |
| All | ||||
| Crude | 1.37 (0.99, 1.88) | 1.38 (1.00, 1.89) | 1.26 (1.01, 1.57) | 1.20 (0.98, 1.46) |
| Age-adjusted | 1.34 (0.98, 1.83) | 1.36 (1.00, 1.87) | 1.22 (1.04, 1.43) | 1.16 (0.99, 1.35) |
| Age, check-up history and biomarkers adjusted | 1.32 (1.07, 1.63) | 1.36 (1.00, 1.86) | 1.31 (1.10, 1.55) | 1.15 (0.99, 1.35) |
| Men | ||||
| Crude | 1.29 (0.89, 1.88) | 1.30 (0.90, 1.88) | 1.18 (0.88, 1.56) | 1.16 (0.90, 1.50) |
| Model 1: age-adjusted | 1.27 (0.87, 1.86) | 1.30 (0.89, 1.89) | 1.17 (0.94, 1.47) | 1.14 (0.92, 1.40) |
| Age, check-up history and biomarkers adjusted | 1.45 (1.09, 1.93) | 1.29 (0.89, 1.88) | 1.13 (0.88, 1.44) | 1.13 (0.92, 1.39) |
| Women | ||||
| Crude | 1.46 (1.12, 1.91) | 1.47 (1.13, 1.92) | 1.50 (1.16, 1.93) | 1.35 (1.07, 1.69) |
| Age-adjusted | 1.43 (1.11, 1.84) | 1.45 (1.12, 1.87) | 1.37 (1.06, 1.76) | 1.27 (1.01, 1.60) |
| Age, check-up history and biomarkers adjusted | 1.19 (0.98, 1.46) | 1.45 (1.12, 1.86) | 1.87 (1.27, 2.75) | 1.27 (1.01, 1.59) |
*Prevalence ratios were calculated with Poisson regression adjusted for within-parlour clustering using parlour random effects.