Do poorer people have poorer access to local resources and facilities? The distribution of local resources by area deprivation in Glasgow, Scotland.

Clicks: 180
ID: 69321
2008
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #115 of 124 articles by views in Social science & medicine (1982)

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 124 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
It has commonly been suggested that in modern cities individual or household deprivation (for example, low income or education) is amplified by area level deprivation (for example, lack of jobs or good schools), in ways which damage the health of the poorest and increase health inequalities. The aim of this study was to determine the location of a range of resources and exposures by deprivation in a UK city. We examined the location of 42 resources in Glasgow City, Scotland, in 2005-2006, by quintile of small area deprivation. Measures included number per 1000 population, network distance to nearest resource, and percentage of data zones containing at least one of each type of resource. Twelve resources had higher density in, and/or were closer to or more common in, more deprived neighbourhoods: public nurseries, public primary schools, police stations, pharmacies, credit unions, post offices, bus stops, bingo halls, public swimming pools, public sports centres, outdoor play areas, and vacant and derelict land/buildings. Sixteen had higher density in, and/or were closer to, or more common in, more affluent neighbourhoods: public secondary schools, private schools, banks, building societies, museums/art galleries, railway stations, subway stations, tennis courts, bowling greens, private health clubs, private swimming pools, colleges, A & E hospitals, parks, waste disposal sites, and tourist attractions. Private nurseries, Universities, fire stations, general, dental and ophthalmic practices, pawn brokers, ATMs, supermarkets, fast food chains, cafes, public libraries, golf courses, and cinemas showed no clear pattern by deprivation. Thus it appears that in the early 21st century access to resources does not always disadvantage poorer neighbourhoods in the UK. We conclude that we need to ensure that theories and policies are based on up-to-date and context-specific empirical evidence on the distribution of neighbourhood resources, and to engage in further research on interactions between individual and environmental factors in shaping health and health inequalities.
Reference Key
macintyre2008dosocial Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Macintyre, Sally;Macdonald, Laura;Ellaway, Anne;
Journal Social science & medicine (1982)
Year 2008
DOI
10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.05.029
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.