SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

Journals of faculty of medicine: Socioeconomic status ,ndicators

Tıp fakültesi dergileri: Sosyoekonomik durum göstergeleri

Alpaslan TÜRKKAN
Pages
31–34
Publication Date
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Socioeconomic indicators that affect health are not given the importance they deserve by researchers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: In this study, it is aimed to determine the frequency of use and feature of social class and socioeconomic indicators in the Journals of Turkish Faculties of Medicine.MATERIAL and METHODS: The study was carried out on medical school journals indexed in ULAKBİM Turkish Electronic Medical Data Base.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Social class and socioeconomic indicators surveyed only in original researches by analyzing materials/methods and results section.RESULTS: In the study, 406 volumes and 2390 researches of 17 medical faculty journals were surveyed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Socioeconomic indicators that affect health are not given the importance they deserve by researchers.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In this study, it is aimed to determine the frequency of use and feature of social class and socioeconomic indicators in the Journals of Turkish Faculties of Medicine.MATERIAL and METHODS: The study was carried out on medical school journals indexed in ULAKBİM Turkish Electronic Medical Data Base. Social class and socioeconomic indicators surveyed only in original researches by analyzing materials/methods and results section.RESULTS: In the study, 406 volumes and 2390 researches of 17 medical faculty journals were surveyed. Socioeconomic indicators were mentioned only in 209 (%8.87) of researches. Education is the most commonly used indicator for this purpose. Social class was never used as an indicator at all.CONCLUSION: As socioeconomic indicators have been studied insufficiently in medical faculty journals, social class has never been studied. Socioeconomic indicators that affect health are not given the importance they deserve by researchers.

Özet

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmada Tıp Fakültesi dergilerinde sosyal sınıf ve sosyoekonomik göstergelerin kullanım sıklığı ile sınıflama özelliklerini belirlemek amaçlanmıştır.GEREÇ ve YÖNTEM: Çalışma elektronik ortamda ULAKBİM Türk Tıp Veri Tabanında yer alan tıp fakültesi dergilerinde yürütülmüştür. Sosyal sınıf ve sosyoekonomik göstergeler sadece araştırmalarda ve gereç/yöntem ile bulgular bölümleri incelenerek yürütülmüştür.BULGULAR: Çalışmada 17 tıp fakültesi dergisinin 406 sayısında ve 2390 araştırmada yürütülmüştür. Herhangi bir sosyoekonomik gösterge kullanılan araştırma sayısı 209'dur (%8,74). Sosyoekonomik durum saptamaya yönelik en sık eğitim durumu kullanılmaktadır. Sosyal sınıf ise hiçbir çalışmada değişken olarak kullanılmamıştır.SONUÇ: Tıp Fakültesi dergilerinde sosyoekonomik göstergeler yeterince, sosyal sınıf değişkeni ise hiç incelenmemiştir. Araştırmacılar tarafından sağlığı etkileyen sosyoekonomik etkenlere hak ettiği önem verilmemiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜRKKAN, A. (2022). Journals of faculty of medicine: Socioeconomic status ,ndicators. Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 31–34. https://ajindex.com/articles/428958

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Galobardes B, Lynch J, Davey Smith G. Measuring socioeconomic position in health research. Br Med Bull 2007;81-82:21-37
  2. Barker DJP, Forsén T, Uutela A, Osmond C, Eriksson JG. Size at birth and resilience to effects of poor living conditions in adult life: longitudinal study. BMJ 2001;323:1273
  3. Mackenbach JP, Kunst AE, Cavelaars AEJM, Groenhof F, Geurts JJM. Socioeconomic inequalities in morbidity and mortality in western Europe. The Lancet 1997;349:1655-9
  4. Brønnum-Hansen H. Socioeconomic differences in health expectancy in Denmark. Scand J Public Health 2000;28:194-9
  5. Hanson MD. Chen E. Socioeconomic Status and Health Behaviors in Adolescence: A Review of the Literature. J Behav Med 2007;30:263-85
  6. Nocon M, Keil T, Willich SN. Education, income, occupational status and health risk behaviour. J Public Health 2007;15:401-5
  7. Ansari Z, Carson NJ, Ackland MJ, Vaughan L, Serraglio A. A Public health model of the social determinants of health. Soz Praventivmed 2003;48:242-251
  8. Weires M, Bermejo JL, Sundquist K, Sundquist J, Hemminki K. Socio-economic status and overall and cause-specific mortality in Sweden. BMC Public Health 2008;8:340
  9. Cabrera C, Helgesson Ö, Wedel H, Björkelund C, Bengtsson C, Lissner L. Socioeconomic status and mortality in Swedish women: opposing trends for cardiovascular disease and cancer. Epidemiology 2001;12(5):532-6
  10. Park JO, Shin SD, Kim J, Song KJ, Peck MD. Association between socioeconomic status and burn injury severity. Burns 2009;35:482-90
  11. Hagen K, Zwart J, Svebak S, Bovim G, Stovner LJ, Low socioeconomic status is associated with chronic musculoskeletal complaints among 46,901 adults in Norway. Scand J Public Health 2005; 33: 268-75
  12. Eachus J, Chan P, Pearson N, Propper C, Smith GD, An additional dimension to health inequalities: disease severity and socioeconomic position, J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:603-11
  13. Wohlfarth T, Van Den Brink W. Social class and substance use disorders: The value of social class as distinct from socioeconomic status. Soc Sci Med 1998;47(1):51-8
  14. Bachmann MO, Eachus J, Hopper CD, Smith GD, Proppert C, Pearson NJ, Williams S, Tallon D, Frankel S. Socio-economic inequalities in diabetes complications, control, attitudes and health service use: a cross-sectional study. Diabetic Medicine 2003;20:921-9
  15. Monden CWS. Socioeconomic health inequalities in Latvia: a cross-sectional study. Scand J Public Health 2004;32:217-23
  16. WHO, Equity in access t