Medical and sociological analysis of the quality of life in rural physicians
Heading: Sociology and history of medicine Article type: Original article
Authors: Krom I.L., Erugina M.V., Eremina М.G., Sapogova M.D., Subbotina V.G.
Organization: Saratov State Medical University
Objective: to analyze the quality of life of rural healthcare doctors in the Saratov region. Material and methods. 327 doctors working in regional medical organizations of the Saratov region took part in the survey. The respondents' quality of life was assessed using the Russian-language version of WHOQOL-100 (World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire with 100 items). Results. The lowest values of the respondents' average quality of life indicators were recorded in the sub-sphere F18 "Financial resources" (10.19±1.20). The highest values of the respondents' average quality of life indicators were established in the sub-spheres: F9 "Mobility" (16.26±1.24), F12 "Ability to work" (16.06±0.90) and F13 "Personal relations" (16.26±0.81). There were no significant gender and age differences in the quality of life of the respondents (p>0.05). Conclusion. An analysis of the quality of life of doctors in rural health care in the Saratov region revealed a decrease in its indicators in all areas and sub-spheres of the WHOQOL-100. The results of the study prove the impact on the quality of life of rural healthcare doctors of their professional activities and living conditions in rural areas.
Bibliography:
1. Reshetnikov AV. Sociology of medicine. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media, 2007; 256 p.
2. Faronova YuV. Spatio-temporal dynamics of the quality of life of the population of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Successes of Modern Natural Science 2020; (4): 163-8.
3. Quality of Life — a concept paper: defining, measuring and reporting. Quality of life for Canadians. TBS staff working paper 2000.
4. Reshetnikov AV. Sociological understanding of the integral concept of quality of life and methodology for its assessment: report at a scientific and practical conference with international
participation (Moscow, Sechenov University, 05.02.2019). Moscow, 2019.
5. Wasserman LI. The internal picture of the disease in the structure of quality of life in patients with somatic pathology. Siberian Journal of Psychology 2008; (27): 67-71.
6. Andargoli АЕ. e-Health in Australia: A synthesis of thirty years of e-Health initiatives. Telematics and Informatics 2021; (56): e101478.
7. Chen X, Orom H, Hay JL, et al. Differences in rural and urban health information access and use. Journal of Rural Health 2019; 35(3): 405-17.
8. Goncharenko LN. Assessment of the quality of life of the rural population (on the example of the Sherbakulsky municipal district of the Omsk region). Research and Scientific Electronic Journal of Omsk SAU 2020; 4 (23): 15.
9. Kuzmich NP Development of social infrastructure in rural areas of the region in order to improve the quality of life of the population. Economy: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow 2019; 9 (4-1): 392-9.
10. Vartanova ML. Improving the level and quality of life of the population is the main task of sustainable development of rural areas. Ekonomicheskie Otnosheniya 2019; 9 (3): 1925-38.
11. Kolpakova OV. Integrated development of rural areas. Synergy of Sciences 2021; (58): 83-93.
12. Kovalev ЕР. Some results of a comparative analysis of the quality of life of doctors in the Russian province. Medical Almanac 2019; 5-6 (61): 7-10.
13. Khachetsukov ZM. Social comfort in the context of transformational processes in the structure of modern Russian everyday life. MGIMO Review of International Relations 2013; (2): 214-9.
14. lonin LG. Understanding sociology. Historical and critical analysis. Moscow: Science, 1979; 207 p.
15. Schutz A. The structure of everyday thinking. Sociological Studies 1988; (2): 129-31.
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
2022_2_256-260.pdf | 387.27 KB |