Abstract

The study aimed to validate the estimates of adult smokers determined by Vigitel for small areas, defined by the Health Vulnerability Index (IVS). The database of the Health Survey of the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte (RMBH) carried out in 2010 and the data from Vigitel in the period from 2010 to 2013 were used to obtain estimates of adult smokers by IVS. With Vigitel, the estimate of smokers by IVS was obtained by the indirect estimation method in small areas. The prevalence of adult smokers was compared, considering RMBH as the gold standard. The t test was used to evaluate the difference between the means and the Pearson correlation, with a significance level of 5%. When stratifying by IVS in the household survey, the prevalence of adult smokers ranged from 13.39% (95%CI 11.88 - 14.91) for residents in a low-risk area to 22.9% (95%CI 12.33 - 33.48) among residents in a very high-risk area. With Vigitel, according to IVS, the prevalence of adult smokers ranged from 11.98% (95%CI 10.75 - 13.21) for residents in the low-risk area to 22.31% (95%CI 18.25 - 26.1) in very high-risk areas. The prevalence was similar between the two surveys, showing good Pearson correlation (r = 0.93). The study points out that the estimates of smokers were similar in both surveys, showing the external validity of Vigitel. There was a gradient in prevalence, with progressive increase, identifying a higher proportion of smokers in high-risk areas.

Highlights

  • IntroductionNational health surveys have great advantages, due to their scope, their breadth of topics, as they cover the entire population, and for assessing health conditions in their numerous themes, including determinants and conditions[2]

  • Objective: The study aimed to validate the estimates of adult smokers determined by Vigitel for small areas, defined by the Health Vulnerability Index (IVS)

  • When stratifying by IVS in the household survey, the prevalence of adult smokers ranged from 13.39% (95%CI 11.88 – 14.91) for residents in a low-risk area to 22.9% (95%CI 12.33 – 33.48) among residents in a very high-risk area

Read more

Summary

Introduction

National health surveys have great advantages, due to their scope, their breadth of topics, as they cover the entire population, and for assessing health conditions in their numerous themes, including determinants and conditions[2] National surveys, such as the National Health Survey[3], Risk and Protection Factors Surveillance System for Chronic Diseases by telephone survey (Vigitel)[4] and Longitudinal Study of the Health of Elderly Brazilians (Elsi)[5], are important examples of the use of information for health planning and management. In 2012, this index was updated with data from the 2010 Census, being divided into four clusters of health risk called low, medium, high and very high[8]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call