Gender differences in vision health-seeking behavior and vision health outcomes among rural Chinese schoolchildren by birth order and family size.
Birth order
Family size
Gender difference
Health outcome
Health-seeking behavior
Journal
International journal for equity in health
ISSN: 1475-9276
Titre abrégé: Int J Equity Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101147692
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 05 2023
13 05 2023
Historique:
received:
01
07
2022
accepted:
04
05
2023
medline:
15
5
2023
pubmed:
14
5
2023
entrez:
13
5
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The gender gap remains a major impediment in the path toward equality, and it is especially wide in low-income countries. Gender differences in health-seeking behaviors may be a factor. Family size and childbirth order are two critical factors affecting family resource allocation. This study examines gender differences in healthcare-seeking behaviors among children with visual impairment in rural China across different family structures (birth order and family size). We draw on a dataset containing 19,934 observations constructed by combining data from 252 different school-level surveys spanning two provinces. The surveys were all conducted in 2012 using uniform survey instruments and data collection protocols in randomly selected schools across western provinces in rural China. The sample children range in grades from 4 to 5. Our analysis compares rural girls with rural boys regarding vision health outcome and behavior (vision examination and correction). The findings revealed that girls have worse vision than boys. Regarding vision health behaviors, girls have a lower overall vision examination rate than boys. There is no gender difference when the sample student is the only child or the youngest child in the family, but there is still a gender difference when the sample student is the oldest child in the family or the middle child in the birth order. When it comes to vision correction behavior, boys are more likely to own eyeglasses than girls are for groups of students with mild visual impairment, even when the sample student is the only child in the family. However, when the sample student has another brother or sister (the sample student is the youngest, the oldest child in the family, or the middle child in the birth order), the gender difference disappears. Gender differences in vision health outcomes are correlated with gender differences in vision health-seeking behaviors among rural children. Depending on the birth order and family size, gender disparities in visual health practices vary. In the future, consideration should be given to providing medical subsidies to reduce the cost of vision health behaviors and to provide information interventions to change gender inequality in households and promote equality in children's vision health behaviors. The trial was approved by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board (Protocol No. ISRCTN03252665). Permission was received from local Boards of Education in each region and the principals of all schools. The principles of the Declaration of Helsinki were followed throughout. Written informed consent was obtained from at least one parent for all child participants.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The gender gap remains a major impediment in the path toward equality, and it is especially wide in low-income countries. Gender differences in health-seeking behaviors may be a factor. Family size and childbirth order are two critical factors affecting family resource allocation. This study examines gender differences in healthcare-seeking behaviors among children with visual impairment in rural China across different family structures (birth order and family size).
METHODS
We draw on a dataset containing 19,934 observations constructed by combining data from 252 different school-level surveys spanning two provinces. The surveys were all conducted in 2012 using uniform survey instruments and data collection protocols in randomly selected schools across western provinces in rural China. The sample children range in grades from 4 to 5. Our analysis compares rural girls with rural boys regarding vision health outcome and behavior (vision examination and correction).
RESULTS
The findings revealed that girls have worse vision than boys. Regarding vision health behaviors, girls have a lower overall vision examination rate than boys. There is no gender difference when the sample student is the only child or the youngest child in the family, but there is still a gender difference when the sample student is the oldest child in the family or the middle child in the birth order. When it comes to vision correction behavior, boys are more likely to own eyeglasses than girls are for groups of students with mild visual impairment, even when the sample student is the only child in the family. However, when the sample student has another brother or sister (the sample student is the youngest, the oldest child in the family, or the middle child in the birth order), the gender difference disappears.
CONCLUSIONS
Gender differences in vision health outcomes are correlated with gender differences in vision health-seeking behaviors among rural children. Depending on the birth order and family size, gender disparities in visual health practices vary. In the future, consideration should be given to providing medical subsidies to reduce the cost of vision health behaviors and to provide information interventions to change gender inequality in households and promote equality in children's vision health behaviors.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
The trial was approved by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board (Protocol No. ISRCTN03252665). Permission was received from local Boards of Education in each region and the principals of all schools. The principles of the Declaration of Helsinki were followed throughout. Written informed consent was obtained from at least one parent for all child participants.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37179296
doi: 10.1186/s12939-023-01907-5
pii: 10.1186/s12939-023-01907-5
pmc: PMC10183124
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN03252665']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
87Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Front Public Health. 2023 Jan 19;11:1069793
pubmed: 36741945
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001 May;42(6):1226-31
pubmed: 11328731
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Apr 28;15(5):
pubmed: 29710797
BMJ. 2014 Sep 23;349:g5740
pubmed: 25249453
PLoS One. 2016 Jul 08;11(7):e0158119
pubmed: 27391448
Am Econ Rev. 2017 Sep;107(9):2600-29
pubmed: 29558073
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2015 Mar;46(2):306-21
pubmed: 26513934
Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2014 Nov;45(6):1464-73
pubmed: 26466433
Arch Dis Child. 2014 Apr;99(4):369-74
pubmed: 24344176
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018 Jul 1;136(7):731-737
pubmed: 29801081
Nutrients. 2019 Jan 16;11(1):
pubmed: 30654514
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 15;9(8):e104598
pubmed: 25127396
Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):560-569
pubmed: 30739691
Health Place. 2014 Sep;29:67-78
pubmed: 24994096
Lancet. 2019 Jun 15;393(10189):2440-2454
pubmed: 31155275
Lancet Glob Health. 2021 Apr;9(4):e489-e551
pubmed: 33607016
Br J Ophthalmol. 2011 May;95(5):642-5
pubmed: 20852314
Demography. 2017 Jun;54(3):835-859
pubmed: 28484996
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015 Feb 27;13:29
pubmed: 25888732
Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Sep 1;96(9):644-653
pubmed: 30262946
Ecol Food Nutr. 2010 Sep-Oct;49(5):357-72
pubmed: 21888576
Int J Equity Health. 2022 Feb 19;21(1):26
pubmed: 35183168
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2023 Feb;30(1):17-26
pubmed: 35038950
Am Econ J Appl Econ. 2014 Jan 1;6(1):157-189
pubmed: 24575163
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Jun 29;3(3):e000859
pubmed: 29989065
Int J Equity Health. 2016 Sep 29;15(1):162
pubmed: 27686497
Optom Vis Sci. 2017 May;94(5):582-587
pubmed: 28406857
SSM Popul Health. 2019 Feb 02;9:100372
pubmed: 31998823
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021 Apr 09;14:1449-1464
pubmed: 33859511
BMJ Open. 2019 Aug 7;9(8):e026850
pubmed: 31391189
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Oct;118:66-70
pubmed: 25108692
Public Health Nutr. 2018 Aug;21(11):2056-2064
pubmed: 29478427