1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Applying a Social Exclusion Framework to Explore the Relationship Between Sudden Unexpected Deaths in Infancy (SUDI) and Social Vulnerability

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background: Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI) is a leading cause of preventable infant mortality and strongly associated with social adversity. While this has been noted over many decades, most previous studies have used single economic markers in social disadvantage analyses. To date there have been no previous attempts to analyze the cumulative effect of multiple adversities in combination on SUDI risk.

          Methods: Based on sociological theories of social exclusion, a multidimensional framework capable of producing an overall measure of family-level social vulnerability was developed, accounting for both increasing disadvantage with increasing prevalence among family members and effect of family structures. This framework was applied retrospectively to all cases of SUDI that occurred in Queensland between 2010 and 2014. Additionally, an exploratory factor analysis was performed to investigate whether differing “types” of vulnerability could be identified.

          Results: Increased family vulnerability was associated with four major known risk factors for sudden infant death: smoking, surface sharing, not-breastfeeding and use of excess bedding. However, families with lower levels of social vulnerability were more likely to display two major risk factors: prone infant sleep position and not room-sharing. There was a significant positive relationship between family vulnerability and the cumulative total of risk factors. Exploratory factor analysis identified three distinct vulnerability types (chaotic lifestyle, socioeconomic and psychosocial); the first two were associated with presence of major SUDI risk factors. Indigenous infants had significantly higher family vulnerability scores than non-Indigenous families.

          Conclusion: A multidimensional measure that captures adversity across a range of indicators highlights the need for proportionate universalism to reduce the stalled rates of sudden infant death. In addition to information campaigns continuing to promote the importance of the back-sleeping position and close infant-caregiver proximity, socially vulnerable families should be a priority population for individually tailored or community based multi-model approaches.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Socioeconomic status and smoking: a review.

          Smoking prevalence is higher among disadvantaged groups, and disadvantaged smokers may face higher exposure to tobacco's harms. Uptake may also be higher among those with low socioeconomic status (SES), and quit attempts are less likely to be successful. Studies have suggested that this may be the result of reduced social support for quitting, low motivation to quit, stronger addiction to tobacco, increased likelihood of not completing courses of pharmacotherapy or behavioral support sessions, psychological differences such as lack of self-efficacy, and tobacco industry marketing. Evidence of interventions that work among lower socioeconomic groups is sparse. Raising the price of tobacco products appears to be the tobacco control intervention with the most potential to reduce health inequalities from tobacco. Targeted cessation programs and mass media interventions can also contribute to reducing inequalities. To tackle the high prevalence of smoking among disadvantaged groups, a combination of tobacco control measures is required, and these should be delivered in conjunction with wider attempts to address inequalities in health. © 2012 New York Academy of Sciences.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            An evaluation of the Kessner Adequacy of Prenatal Care Index and a proposed Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index.

            The assessment of the adequacy of prenatal care utilization is heavily shaped by the way in which utilization is measured. Although it is widely used, the current major index of utilization, the Kessner/Institute of Medicine Index, has not been subjected to systematic examination. This paper provides such an examination. Data from the 1980 National Natality Survey are used to disaggregate the components of the Kessner Index for detailed analysis. An alternative two-part index, the Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index, is proposed that combines independent assessments of the timing of prenatal care initiation and the frequency of visits received after initiation. The Kessner Index is seriously flawed. It is heavily weighted toward timing of prenatal care initiation does not distinguish timing of initiation from poor subsequent utilization, inaccurately measures utilization for full- or post-term pregnancies, and lacks sufficient documentation for consistent computer programming. The Adequacy of Prenatal Care Utilization Index offers a more accurate and comprehensive set of measures of prenatal care utilization than the Kessner Index.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Fair society, healthy lives

              The final report of the World Health Organization Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), published in 2008, affirmed that social injustice was killing on a grand scale, with a toxic combination of 'poor social policies and programmes, unfair economic arrangements, and bad politics' being responsible for producing and reinforcing health inequalities. It provided a comprehensive evidence-based discussion of pervasive inequalities of health in many countries, demonstrating the presence of a social gradient in health outcomes associated with the unfair distribution of the social determinants of health. The social determinants of health include the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, and the fundamental drivers of these conditions: the distribution of power; money; and resources. Following publication of the CSDH report and recommendations for action, the UK Government commissioned a Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England. This article provides an overview and reflection on the findings from the CSDH and the Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England, reviewing the case for putting fairness at the heart of all policy making. In the process, it highlights the need for action on the social determinants of health in order to address health inequalities and the social gradient in health outcomes. Copyright © 2012 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Public Health
                Front Public Health
                Front. Public Health
                Frontiers in Public Health
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-2565
                20 October 2020
                2020
                : 8
                : 563573
                Affiliations
                [1] 1School of Nursing, Midwifery, and Paramedicine, University of the Sunshine Coast , Sippy Downs, QLD, Australia
                [2] 2Departments of Paediatrics, Child and Youth Health, and Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medical and Health Science, University of Auckland , Auckland, New Zealand
                Author notes

                Edited by: Bec Jenkinson, Independent Researcher, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

                Reviewed by: Anna Pease, University of Bristol, United Kingdom; David Tipene-Leach, Eastern Institute of Technology, New Zealand

                *Correspondence: Rebecca A. Shipstone rebecca.shipstone@ 123456research.usc.edu.au

                This article was submitted to Inequalities in Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

                Article
                10.3389/fpubh.2020.563573
                7606531
                33194965
                99eb6179-badb-4722-9bd0-d740b526d079
                Copyright © 2020 Shipstone, Young, Kearney and Thompson.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 19 May 2020
                : 15 September 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 58, Pages: 14, Words: 10540
                Funding
                Funded by: University of the Sunshine Coast 10.13039/501100001796
                Categories
                Public Health
                Original Research

                sudden unexpected deaths in infancy (sudi),sudden infant death syndrome—sids,disadvantage,social exclusión,deprivation,social vulnerability and vulnerable

                Comments

                Comment on this article