↓ Skip to main content

Does where you live matter to your health? Investigating factors that influence the self-rated health of urban and rural Chinese residents: evidence drawn from Chinese General Social Survey data

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Does where you live matter to your health? Investigating factors that influence the self-rated health of urban and rural Chinese residents: evidence drawn from Chinese General Social Survey data
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0658-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hongsheng Chen, Ye Liu, Zhenjun Zhu, Zhigang Li

Abstract

China's rapid urbanization over the past decades has exacerbated the problems of environmental degradation and health disparities. However, few studies have analysed the differences between urban and rural residents in relation to how environmental quality impacts health outcomes. This study examines the associations between Chinese people's perceptions of environmental quality and their self-rated health, particularly focusing on differences between rural and urban residents in environment-health relationships. Using a logistic regression model and data from the 2013 Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), a representative sample of data for 3,402 urban residents (46 ± 16 years) and 2,439 rural residents (48 ± 15 years) was analysed. The dependent variable used for the logistic regressions was whether or not respondents reported being healthy. Independent variables included respondents' evaluations of the living environment, and how frequently they participated in physical activities. Interaction terms were employed to measure the moderating effects of physical exercise on the relationship between perceived environmental quality and health. The percentage of healthy urban residents was significantly larger than that of healthy rural respondents (70.87% versus 62.87%). Urban respondents living in areas with sufficient green space were more likely to report good health (OR = 0.749, CI = [0.628, 0.895]), while rural respondents without reliable access to fresh water were more likely to report poor health (OR = 0.762, CI = [0.612, 0.949]). Urban respondents who were exposed to green spaces and exercised frequently were 21.6 per cent more likely to report good health than those who exercised infrequently (OR = 1.216, CI = [1.047, 1.413]). Those who lived in areas with insufficient green space and exercised frequently were 19.1 per cent less likely to report good health than those who exercised infrequently (OR = 0.805, CI = [0.469, 1.381]). No evidence suggested that physical exercise exerted a moderating effect on the relationship between exposure to air pollution and health. On average, urban residents have better health than rural residents. Among four indicators for low environmental quality (air pollution, lack of green spaces, water pollution, uncertain access to freshwater resources), green space was an important determinant of urban residents' health status, while unreliable access to fresh water harmed rural residents' health. Physical exercise moderated the effects of exposure to green spaces on urban residents' health.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 136 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 16%
Student > Master 21 15%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 22 16%
Unknown 35 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 19 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Environmental Science 9 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 6%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 46 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2017.
All research outputs
#17,887,790
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,509
of 2,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,707
of 309,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#45
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.