Ecological approach to sickle cell disease and environmental quality assessment in Guadeloupe (French West Indies)

Figures & data

Table 1. Detailed presentation of the Measure of the Quality of the Environment (MQE scale, adapted from Fougeyrollas, 2010)

Scale point	Appreciation	Definition
−3	Major obstacle	Completely prevents the accomplishment of the life habit
−2	Moderate obstacle	Substantially interferes with the accomplishment of the life habit
−1	Minor obstacle	Interferes with the accomplishment of the life habit, or just slightly increases the difficulty
0	No influence	Situations or environmental factors having no effect on the performance of an activity
1	Minor facilitator	Makes up for deficiencies or disabilities and allows for a partial accomplishment of the habit, or only slightly reduces difficulty
2	Moderate facilitator	Moderately compensates deficiencies or disabilities, or allows to partially realize the habit, or with difficulty
3	Major facilitator	Compensates deficiencies or disabilities, and allows to fully accomplish the life habit without constraint or difficulty
N	Unknown	The effect of situations or environmental factors on an individual’s life is unknown
P	Does not apply	Situations or environmental factors that do not exist in the context

Table 2. Comparison of participant characteristics between SCD group and control group

	SCD Group N = 80	Control Group N = 45	p
Continuous variable	Mean ± standard deviation	Mean ± standard deviation
Age (in years)	11,25 ± 3,21	10,55 ± 2,93	0,241
Category variables	n (%)	n (%)
Gender			0,729
Female	36 (45%)	22 (48,9%)
Male	44 (55%)	23 (51,1%)
Marital situation of the parents			<0,001
Together	24 (30,7%)	32 (71,1%)
Single parent	54 (69,3%)	13 (28,9%)
Missing	2
Siblings			0,005
Single child	29 (37,1%)	6 (13,3%)
Siblings	49 (62,9%)	39 (86,7%)
Missing	2
Occupation of parents			<0,001
Intermediary-superior	17 (21,8%)	26 (57,8%)
Worker-employee	32 (41,2%)	15 (33,3%)
Inactive	29 (37%)	4 (8,9%)
Missing	2

Table 3. Mean scores (SD) of MQE factors according to group and T-Student results (p value)

	SCD Group	Control Group	p
MQE	Mean ± standard deviation	Mean ± standard deviation
Social network	1,15 ± 0,93	2,01 ± 0,62	<0,001
Attitude of relatives	0,93 ± 0,72	1,37 ± 0,80	0,002
Sources of income	0,93 ± 1,41	2,00 ± 1,31	<0,001
Socio-health services	1,57 ± 0,78	1,65 ± 0,94	0,616
Educational services	0,45 ± 0,87	1,44 ± 0,71	<0,001
Public infrastructures	0,48 ± 0,67	1,64 ± 0,87	<0,001
Community organisms	0,72 ± 0,77	1,76 ± 1,15	<0,001
Traffic lanes	0,18 ± 1,08	1,09 ± 1,45	<0,001
Natural elements	−1,26 ± 0,67	0,43 ± 0,78	<0,001
Political systems	−0,05 ± 0,97	−0,02 ± 1,22	0,910
Social rules	−0,17 ± 1,08	0,62 ± 1,33	<0,001
Social Environment	0,69 ± 0,48	1,52 ± 0,65	<0,001
Physical Environment	−0,54 ± 0,67	0,76 ± 0,79	<0,001
Overall Environment	0,46 ± 0,43	1,37 ± 0,61	<0,001

Figure 1. Score of global environment quality depending on group and area of living.

Table 4. Mean score (SD) of MQE social factors according to group, and T-Student (p value)

	SCD	CG	p
Factors	Mean ± SD	Mean ± SD
Support from family and loved ones	1.85 ± 1.64	2.26 ± 1.19	0.02
Support from friends	1.34 ± 1.50	2.42 ± 0.86	< .001
Support from classmates	0.68 ± 1.56	1.88 ± 1.16	< .001
Support from teaching staff	0.75 ± 1.82	2.25 ± 1.05	< .001
Attitudes from school doctor	0.52 ± 1.44	0.78 ± 1.52	0.43
Attitudes from family and circle	1.43 ± 1.79	1.77 ± 1.66	0.29
Religious beliefs	1.77 ± 1.38	1.23 ± 1.21	< .05
Attitudes from persons in group	−0.46 ± 1.22	0.56 ± 1.46	< .001
Attitudes from unknown people	−0.64 ± 1.38	0.37 ± 1.39	< .001
Attitudes from friends	1.27 ± 1.34	2.11 ± 1.22	< .001
Attitudes from teaching staff	0.65 ± 1.92	1.66 ± 1.41	< .001
Attitudes from sports teacher	0.79 ± 1.84	1.94 ± 1.60	< .001

Fougeyrollas, P. (2010). Le Funambule, le fil et la toile. Transformations réciproques du sens du handicap. Québec, Presses Universitaires de Laval.

 Google Scholar