OBJECTIVE: To find the prevalence of different family structures in our health district. DESIGN: An epidemiological study of a cross-sectional [correction of crossover] type. SETTING: Primary Care. La Orden Health Centre in Huelva. PARTICIPANTS: 878 individuals, who represented a family unit, selected by random sampling stratified by age and gender, obtained from the 1991 Municipal Census. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A questionnaire was administered to all those participating in the study. This included demographic data, the number of people living in their homes, the composition of their family and the presence of close relatives in the neighbourhood. The final sample covered 787 families. Using de La Revilla et al.'s proposal, partially modified by us, the family was classified as: nuclear, extended, single-parent, without family and family equivalents. All of these were in turn sub-classified for the presence of close relatives. The nuclear family was classified as simple, numerous, amplified or binuclear. The predominant family model was nuclear (89.7%), followed by single-parent (4.4%), extended (2.9%), without family (2.4%) and family equivalents (0.6%). The main model of the nuclear family was the simple one (76.5%), followed by amplified (15.4%), leaving the numerous family in 8.1% and the binuclear at 0%. 83.5% of our families had close relatives in the same neighbourhood. CONCLUSIONS: Our family is nuclear, with relatives nearby, a model which has definitively displaced the extended family. The structure proposed makes classification of the nuclear family easier. We believe it is essential to integrate family structure classification into Primary Care family clinical records.
OBJECTIVE: To find the prevalence of different family structures in our health district. DESIGN: An epidemiological study of a cross-sectional [correction of crossover] type. SETTING: Primary Care. La Orden Health Centre in Huelva. PARTICIPANTS: 878 individuals, who represented a family unit, selected by random sampling stratified by age and gender, obtained from the 1991 Municipal Census. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A questionnaire was administered to all those participating in the study. This included demographic data, the number of people living in their homes, the composition of their family and the presence of close relatives in the neighbourhood. The final sample covered 787 families. Using de La Revilla et al.'s proposal, partially modified by us, the family was classified as: nuclear, extended, single-parent, without family and family equivalents. All of these were in turn sub-classified for the presence of close relatives. The nuclear family was classified as simple, numerous, amplified or binuclear. The predominant family model was nuclear (89.7%), followed by single-parent (4.4%), extended (2.9%), without family (2.4%) and family equivalents (0.6%). The main model of the nuclear family was the simple one (76.5%), followed by amplified (15.4%), leaving the numerous family in 8.1% and the binuclear at 0%. 83.5% of our families had close relatives in the same neighbourhood. CONCLUSIONS: Our family is nuclear, with relatives nearby, a model which has definitively displaced the extended family. The structure proposed makes classification of the nuclear family easier. We believe it is essential to integrate family structure classification into Primary Care family clinical records.