| Literature DB >> 31484566 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the urban-rural structure and the increase in rural-to-urban migration, three types of children have emerged in contemporary China: rural, urban, and migrant children. Health disparities among these types of children have caused widespread concern, being the main contributor to health inequalities among children in China. The purpose of this study was to investigate health disparities among these children and the mechanisms underlining them.Entities:
Keywords: Fathers’ education level; Health inequalities in children; Migrant children; Rural children; Urban children
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31484566 PMCID: PMC6724264 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7522-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
HAZ scores of children with different sociodemographic characteristics
| HAZ Score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rural children ( | Migrant children ( | Urban children ( | Overall children ( | |||
| Gender | Male | 0.843 ± 1.127 | 1.068 ± 1.064 | 1.409 ± 0.996 | 1.1 ± 1.097 | < 0.001# |
| Female | 0.372 ± 0.949 | 0.461 ± 0.869 | 0.757 ± 0.861 | 0.549 ± 0.917 | ||
| Age | Year 11–13 | 0.784 ± 1.009 | 0.972 ± 0.986 | 1.164 ± 0.941 | 0.976 ± 0.992 | < 0.001# |
| Year 14–18 | 0.039 ± 1.066 | 0.401 ± 0.985 | 0.578 ± 1.035 | 0.299 ± 1.061 | ||
| Race | Han | 0.71 ± 1.035 | 0.792 ± 1.022 | 1.087 ± 0.961 | 0.878 ± 1.018 | < 0.001# |
| Minority | −0.252 ± 0.979 | 0.631 ± 1.011 | 0.778 ± 1.189 | 0.243 ± 1.169 | ||
| Number of sibling | 1 sibling | 1.003 ± 0.988 | 1.056 ± 1.002 | 1.185 ± 0.925 | 1.122 ± 0.954 | |
| 2 siblings | 0.573 ± 1.041 | 0.735 ± 1.001 | 0.863 ± 1.038 | 0.677 ± 1.039 | < 0.001+ | |
| 3 siblings or above | 0.13 ± 1.067 | 0.417 ± 0.981 | 0.532 ± 1.064 | 0.276 ± 1.057 | ||
| Family economic condition | Poverty | 0.371 ± 1.109 | 0.612 ± 1.052 | 0.757 ± 1.116 | 0.495 ± 1.114 | |
| Middle income | 0.708 ± 1.033 | 0.789 ± 1.007 | 1.087 ± 0.954 | 0.889 ± 1.009 | < 0.001+ | |
| Affluent | 1.02 ± 0.962 | 1.113 ± 1.015 | 1.286 ± 0.939 | 1.186 ± 0.965 | ||
| Total | 0.612 ± 1.069 | 0.779 ± 1.022 | 1.064 ± 0.982 | 0.823 ± 1.047 | ||
Note: # Independent Samples T-Test was used, + F-test was used
Results of multiple linear regression analysis (n = 7772)
| Dependent variable: | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient (SE) | Coefficient (SE) | Coefficient (SE) | Coefficient (SE) | |
| Intercept: | 0.031 (0.037) | 4.879*** (0.189) | 4.789*** (0.195) | 4.694*** (0.197) |
| Gender: (ref. = male) | −0.612*** (0.021) | −0.612*** (0.021) | −0.399*** (0.073) | |
| Age: | − 0.329*** (0.013) | − 0.328*** (0.013) | − 0.328*** (0.013) | |
| Race: (ref. = Han race) | 0.173*** (0.038) | 0.167*** (0.039) | 0.166*** (0.039) | |
| Number of siblings: | −0.172*** (0.017) | −0.174*** (0.017) | − 0.181*** (0.017) | |
| Family economic conditions: (ref. = Poverty) | ||||
| Middle income | 0.176*** (0.026) | 0.175*** (0.026) | 0.174*** (0.026) | |
| Affluent | 0.372*** (0.048) | 0.371*** (0.048) | 0.376*** (0.048) | |
| Child types: (ref. = Rural children) | ||||
| Migrant children | 0.096** (0.033) | 0.153*** (0.029) | 0.287** (0.097) | 0.289** (0.097) |
| Urban children | 0.233*** (0.028) | 0.165*** (0.026) | 0.301*** (0.083) | 0.294*** (0.083) |
| Fathers’ education level: | 0.072*** (0.004) | 0.042*** (0.004) | 0.053*** (0.007) | 0.059*** (0.008) |
| Interaction terms between child type and fathers’ years of education: (ref. = Rural children × father’s education level) | ||||
| Migrant children × fathers’ education level | −0.018* (0.008) | −0.011 (0.011) | ||
| Urban children × fathers’ education level | −0.016† (0.009) | −0.008 (0.009) | ||
| Interaction terms between gender, child type and fathers’ education level: (ref. = Male × Rural children × Fathers’ education level) | ||||
| Female × Rural children × Fathers’ education level | −0.016† (0.009) | |||
| Female × Migrant children × Fathers’ education level | −0.025** (0.008) | |||
| Female × Urban children × Fathers’ education level | −0.028*** (0.007) | |||
| F-statistic | 212.15*** | 304.72*** | 249.68*** | 198.97*** |
| DF | 3 | 9 | 11 | 14 |
| R2 | 0.076 | 0.261 | 0.261 | 0.264 |
Note: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, † p < 0.1
Fig. 1Effects of fathers’ education level on rural, migrant, and urban children’s health
Fig. 2Effects of fathers’ education level on children’s health by gender