| Literature DB >> 17374173 |
Lars Axelsson1, Ingemar H Andersson, Lena Edén, Göran Ejlertsson.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is well known that unemployment is a great problem both to the exposed individual and to the whole society. Unemployment is reported as more common among young people compared to the general level of unemployment. Inequity in health status and life-satisfaction is related to unemployment. The purpose of this population-based study was to describe QOL among unemployed young people compared to those who are not unemployed, and to analyse variables related to QOL for the respective groups.Entities:
Year: 2007 PMID: 17374173 PMCID: PMC1845165 DOI: 10.1186/1475-9276-6-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Equity Health ISSN: 1475-9276
Variables included in the logistic regression with good/not good QOL as the dependent variable
| Dizziness | N | No/yes |
| Anxiety | N | No/yes |
| Difficulty in relaxing | N | No/yes |
| Overweight | N | No/yes |
| Lack of appetite | N | No/yes |
| Loss of weight | N | No/yes |
| Abdominal pain | N | No/yes |
| Headache | N | No/yes |
| Backache | N | No/yes |
| Myalgia/arthralgia | N | No/yes |
| Mental health index | Q: 0 to 6 symptoms | Low (0–2)/high (3–6) |
| Subjective health | O: Good (1) to poor (5) | Good (1)/rather good (2)/not good (3–5) |
| Relations to friends | O: Very satisfied (1) to very dissatisfied (5) | Satisfied (1)/not satisfied (2–5) |
| Close contact with persons outside home | N | Yes/no |
| Social contacts outside home | O: None (1) to >8 (4) | >8 persons (4)/8 persons or < 8 persons (1–3) |
| Feeling lonesome | O: Yes, often (1) to no, never (4) | No (3–4)/yes (1–2) |
| Support from parents/partner/friend/relatives | O: Very good support (1) to none (5) and not relevant (6) for each of these persons | Very good support (1) from at least one of these persons/less than very good support from all these persons (2–6) |
| Self-esteem index | Q: Low self-esteem index (0) to high self-esteem index (6) | Low (0)/high (1–6) |
| Satisfaction with: | ||
| - economy | O: Very satisfied (1) to very dissatisfied (5) | Satisfied (1–3)/not satisfied (4–5) |
| - spare time | O: Very satisfied (1) to very dissatisfied (5) | Satisfied (1–2)/neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3)/not satisfied (4–5) |
| - dwelling | O: Very satisfied (1) to very dissatisfied (5) | Satisfied (1–2)/not satisfied (3–5) |
| Opportunities to make own decisions | O: Very good (1) to very bad (5) | Very good (1)/good (2)/not good (3–5) |
| Married/cohabiting | N | No/yes |
| Living with parents | N | No/yes |
a) N = Nominal scale; O = Ordinal scale; Q = Quote scale.
Present quality of life (QOL) in unemployed and in the reference group. Males and females
| Unemployed | Reference group | p-value | Unemployed | Reference group | p-value | |
| QOL % | (n = 70) | (n = 168) | (n = 88) | (n = 189) | ||
| Very good | 19 | 33 | 15 | 30 | ||
| Rather good | 51 | 57 | 51 | 55 | ||
| Neither good nor bad | 17 | 8 | 24 | 10 | ||
| Bad a) | 13 | 2 | 0.000 | 10 | 5 | 0.001 |
a) Rather bad and very bad.
Unemployed individuals' present quality of life (QOL), and change in quality of life (CQOL) since unemployment
| Betterc) | Unchanged | Worsed) | Total | |
| Good a) | 34 | 50 | 20 | 104 (67%) |
| Neither/nor | 3 | 12 | 18 | 33 (21%) |
| Badb) | 0 | 1 | 17 | 18 (12%) |
| Total | 37 (24%) | 63 (41%) | 55 (35%) | 155 (100%) |
a) Very good and rather good.
b) Rather bad and very bad.
c) Much better and better.
d) Somewhat worse and much worse.
Positive odds ratios (POR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for variables related to good QOL. Results from logistic regression modelling of variables showing a bivariate correlation to QOL in unemployed and in the reference group
| Dizziness: no | 0.46 | (0.12–1.75) | 1.81 | (0.75–4.37) |
| Anxiety: no | (1.21–13.96) | 2.05 | (0.80–5.28) | |
| Difficulty in relaxing: no | 1.20 | (0.44–3.33) | 1.15 | (0.48–2.78) |
| Overweight: no | 1.80 | (0.70–4.64) | 1.38 | (0.53–3.57) |
| Lack of appetite: no | 1.75 | (0.55–5.61) | 2.31 | (0.84–6.34) |
| Loss of weight. no | 1.56 | (0.28–8.79) | 0.96 | (0.23–4.08) |
| Abdominal pain: no | (0.05–0.53) | 1.00 | (0.41–2.42) | |
| Headache: no | 1.77 | (0.66–4.77) | 1.02 | (0.45–2.33) |
| Backache: no | 0.68 | (0.23–2.00) | 2.08 | (0.91–4.74) |
| Myalgia/arthralgia: no | 1.34 | (0.46–3.93) | (0.14–0.95) | |
| Mental health index: low | 1.20 | (0.41–3.51) | 2.70 | (1.00–7.34) |
| Subjective health: | ||||
| not good (reference category) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| rather good | 2.76 | (0.88–8.64) | (1.76–10.60) | |
| good | (3.36–39.06) | (4.00–35.44) | ||
| (n = 149) | (n = 341) | |||
| Relations to friends: satisfied | 1.19 | (0.37–3.76) | 1.22 | (0.50–3.16) |
| Close contacts with persons outside home: yes | 1.50 | (0.32–7.05) | 0.86 | (0.23–3.23) |
| Social contacts outside home: >8 persons | 0.66 | (0.22–1.93) | 1.33 | (0.58–3.07) |
| Feeling lonesome: no | 1.95 | (0.67–5.66) | 1.87 | (0.76–4.57) |
| Support from parents, partner, any friend or any relatives: very good | 0.58 | (0.14–2.34) | 0.77 | (0.22–2.62) |
| Self-esteem index: low (high self-esteem) | (1.26–14.05) | 2.31 | (0.70–7.59) | |
| Economy: satisfied | 2.10 | (0.71–6.19) | (1.68–8.57) | |
| Spare time: | ||||
| not satisfied (reference category) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| neither satisfied nor dissatisfied | 4.76 | (0.91–24.91) | 1.86 | (0.65–5.33) |
| satisfied | (3.03–90.12) | (2.27–19.43) | ||
| Dwelling: satisfied | 1.51 | (0.55–4.15) | 1.70 | (0.73–3.95) |
| Opportunities to make own decisions: | ||||
| not good (reference category) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
| good | (1.47–14.61) | 2.25 | (0.88–5.78) | |
| very good | (2.67–50.67) | 1.98 | (0.66–5.99) | |
| Married/cohabiting: no | 2.54 | (0.65–9.98) | 0.98 | (0.37–2.61) |
| Living with parents: no | 1.63 | (0.55–4.83) | 1.54 | (0.55–4.36) |
a) Positive Odds Ratios in bold when significant (p < 0.05).
Variables not showing a bivariate relation to QOL and therefore not included in the logistic regression models were: sex, education, living alone, living with children, immigration, exhaustion and breathlessness. The variables numbness/pricking in arms and legs and living with someone else consisted of too few individuals, and were therefore excluded from the logistic regression model.