Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-07
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04
  • 2024-05

    • The results presented here are from a follow

    2018-11-05

    The results presented here are from a follow-up survey with attrition of the study cohort leading to modest responses in some communities that weakened the statistical power of our analysis. We have provided confidence intervals in all cases to enable consideration of whether statistically non-significant results are still consistent with practically important effects. Further, our analysis relies on data from only four reasonably homogenous communities; a much larger sample of communities would have reduced the impact of any outlying communities in the dataset. The average age of respondents in the four study communities exceeded the median age of the four towns (averaging 59 years compared with Census data indicating a median age ranging from 41 to 51 years) (Statistics New Zealand, 2013). These differences impact on the generalisability of our results as we have previously observed trends in could capacity scores that differ with age (Lovell et al., 2015a). Only one previous study has comprehensively examined the relationship between community capacity and health outcomes; Jung and Viswanath (2013) observed positive associations between community capacity and health in a study of over 400 communities in South Korea, however, the authors controlled for health behaviours which may be influenced by the place one lives. Our research, instead, suggests that some dimensions of community capacity, may have indirect health benefits by providing a buffer against the health impacts of low income but we estimate that any such effects are small.
    Acknowledgements The financial support of the Department of Preventive & Social Medicine, University of Otago and The Foundation for Youth Development to complete this research are gratefully acknowledged.
    Introduction Education is suggested to be one of the strongest determinants of health and human capital (Commission on Social Determinants of Health, 2008), with the association of better education with greater health and wellbeing seen across the life-course and across very different socioeconomic, cultural and political contexts and one that has persisted over time (Montez & Friedman, 2015). The more educated live longer lives with less disability and ill-health in both rich and poor countries, and there is evidence that the association between education and health is strengthening over time in high income countries (Strand, Groholt, Steingrimsdottir, Blakely, Graff-Iversen & Naess, 2010). Education appears to also have inter-generational benefits; improved education for women may account for up to half the global improvement in child mortality since 1970 (Gakidou, Cowling, Lozano, & Murray, 2010). For fovea reason universal primary education was one of the key UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG Goal 2). There is a growing consensus that education has some causal effects on health, (Baker, Leon, Smith Greenaway, Collins, & Movit, 2011; Behrman, 2015; Miyamoto & Chevalier, 2010; Montez & Friedman, 2015) although there are also likely pathways from health to education and confounding by genetic (Liu et al., 2015) or personality factors (Fuchs, 1982) contributing to both improved health and higher educational attainment. Education may improve health through multiple mechanisms, including stimulation of greater cognitive development and self-regulation, knowledge acquisition and literacy, promotion of more healthy behaviours and avoidance of health risks, greater access to protective societal resources (e.g. the built environment or medical care), avoidance of early marriage as well as greater exposure to prosocial peers and enhancement of social support networks (Baker et al., 2011; Jukes, Simmons, & Bundy, 2008; Liu et al., 2015; Miyamoto & Chevalier, 2010). Through these or alternative mechanisms, education may modify genetic risks for certain diseases (Liu et al., 2015). Education may also be most powerful when substituting or compensating for deprived backgrounds (Ross & Mirowsky, 2011). The existence and strength of such mechanisms are almost certainly dependent on broader social and economic contexts, and are likely to vary by national development level and income (Montez & Friedman, 2015; Smith-Greenaway, 2015).