| Literature DB >> 26030472 |
Michal Avrech Bar1, Tal Jarus2.
Abstract
One of the founding assumptions underlying the health professions is the belief that there is a strong relationship between engagement in occupations, health, and wellbeing. The ability to perform everyday occupations (occupational performance) has a positive effect on health and wellbeing. However, there is also conflicting evidence indicating that participation in multiple roles or in certain occupations may lead to poorer health. Therefore, there is a need to better understand this relationship. The purpose of the present study was to examine three possible theoretical models to explain mothers' health and life satisfaction from the perspective of their occupational performance, their role load, and their social support. 150 married mothers, ages of 25-45, who had at least one child between the ages of one to ten years, participated in the study. Data were collected by using seven self-report questionnaires. The models were analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling. The results show that social support has a direct effect on mothers' physical health and life satisfaction and an indirect effect, mediated through the occupational performance variables, on mothers' mental health and life satisfaction. Role overload does not affect mothers' health and life satisfaction. These results suggest that mothers could benefit from health programs that help them manage their occupational routines. Such programs should focus on improving the mother's occupational performance and adapting her social environment to fit her occupational needs.Entities:
Keywords: Structural Equation Modeling; life satisfaction; mental health; mothering; occupations; physical health
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26030472 PMCID: PMC4483686 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph120606045
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Three alternative theoretical models to describe mothers’ health and life satisfaction.
Demographic variables of the study population: Nominal variables (N = 150).
| Variable Name | Levels | Frequency | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of children | 1 | 41 | 27.3 |
| 2 | 67 | 44.7 | |
| 3 | 35 | 23.3 | |
| 4 | 7 | 4.7 | |
| Education | High school | 24 | 16 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 59 | 39.3 | |
| Two Bachelor’s degrees | 6 | 4 | |
| MA | 30 | 20 | |
| PhD | 5 | 3.3 | |
| Other degrees | 26 | 17.3 |
Descriptive statistics of study variables (N = 150).
| Variable | Mean | Median | SD | Range (Min−Max) | Skewness | Kurtosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Social support | 27.02 | 27.00 | 4.29 | (15–36) | −0.21 | −0.31 |
| 2. Occupational settings | 67.00 | 67.00 | 11.19 | (39–91) | −0.21 | −0.48 |
| 3. Occupational competence | 69.03 | 68.00 | 10.80 | (44–100) | 0.26 | −0.34 |
| 4. Role overload | 2.35 | 2.40 | 0.41 | (1.40–3.50) | −0.12 | −0.31 |
| 5. Health behaviors | 1.69 | 2.00 | 0.70 | (0–3) | −0.31 | 0.06 |
| 6. Physical health | 76.83 | 79.00 | 14.19 | (19–99) | −1.25 | 1.94 |
| 7. Mental health | 76.07 | 78.50 | 12.93 | (37–98) | −1.14 | 1.16 |
| 8. Health perception | 84.07 | 88.00 | 14.33 | (35–100) | −1.19 | 1.11 |
| 9. Satisfaction with life | 26.93 | 28.00 | 4.70 | (10–34) | −1.17 | 1.59 |
| 10. Mother’s age | 34.25 | 33.00 | 4.78 | (25–45) | 0.32 | −0.52 |
| 11. Education | 15.71 | 16.00 | 2.23 | (12–23) | 0.03 | 0.07 |
| 12. No. children | 2.05 | 2.00 | 0.83 | (1–4) | 0.39 | −0.47 |
| 13. Average children’s age | 5.00 | 3.71 | 3.66 | (1–15.75) | 1.04 | 0.10 |
| 14. Hours at work | 34.89 | 35.00 | 9.82 | (12–62) | −0.02 | −0.06 |
Pearson correlations (simple correlations below and correction for attenuation above the main diagonal line) between all study variables (N = 150).
| Variable | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Social support | (0.63) | 0.24 | 0.29 | 0.39 | 0.10 | 0.21 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.50 | 0.03 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.06 | 0.05 |
| 2. Occupational settings | 0.17 * | (0.80) | 0.85 | 0.10 | 0.21 | 0.25 | 0.42 | 0.04 | 0.42 | 0.30 | 0.04 | 0.36 | 0.38 | −0.06 |
| 3. Occupational competence | 0.21 * | 0.69 *** | (0.82) | 0.07 | 0.21 | 0.08 | 0.20 | 0.04 | 0.43 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.33 | 0.29 | −0.03 |
| 4. Role overload | 0.31 *** | 0.09 | 0.06 | ----- | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 0.18 | −0.13 | 0.12 | −0.09 | −0.10 | 0.14 |
| 5. Health behaviors | 0.08 | 0.19 * | 0.19 * | 0.13 | ----- | 0.24 | 0.13 | 0.15 | 0.17 | −0.10 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.13 |
| 6. Physical health | 0.14 | 0.19 * | 0.06 | 0.15 | 0.20 * | (0.70) | 0.77 | 0.66 | 0.34 | 0.06 | −0.13 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.07 |
| 7. Mental health | 0.09 | 0.31 *** | 0.15 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 0.53 *** | (0.67) | 0.54 | 0.69 | 0.09 | −0.16 | 0.15 | 0.12 | −0.22 |
| 8. Health perception | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.17 * | 0.15 | 0.55 *** | 0.44 *** | ----- | 0.25 | −0.19 | −0.05 | −0.03 | −0.10 | 0.07 |
| 9. Satisfaction with life | 0.36 *** | 0.34 *** | 0.35 *** | 0.16 | 0.15 | 0.26 *** | 0.51 *** | 0.23 ** | (0.82) | 0 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.06 | −0.12 |
| 10. Mother’s age | 0.02 | 0.27 *** | 0.21 * | −0.13 | −0.10 | 0.05 | 0.07 | −0.19 * | 0 | ----- | 0.13 | 0.54 | 0.77 | −0.07 |
| 11. Education | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.18 * | 0.12 | 0.06 | −0.11 | −0.13 | −0.05 | 0.07 | 0.13 | ----- | −0.08 | 0.01 | 0.03 |
| 12. No. children | 0.13 | 0.32 *** | 0.30 *** | −0.09 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.12 | −0.03 | 0.12 | 0.54 *** | −0.08 | ----- | 0.63 | −0.07 |
| 13. Children age average | 0.05 | 0.34 *** | 0.26 ** | −0.10 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 0.10 | −0.10 | 0.05 | 0.77 *** | 0.01 | 0.63 *** | ----- | −0.08 |
| 14. Hours at work | 0.04 | −0.05 | −0.03 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.06 | −0.18 * | 0.07 | −0.11 | −0.07 | 0.03 | −0.07 | −0.08 | ----- |
Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.005. Values in bold along the main diagonal line represent reliability and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha). For the role overload, health behaviors, health perception, and background variables Cronbach’s alpha values were not calculated (some are objective background variables that should not contain measurement error, and for some it was not possible to calculate reliability). The simple correlations between research variables are under the main diagonal line. Correction for attenuation (above the main diagonal line) was performed using the formula [58].
The goodness of fit of the three alternative nested models (N = 150).
| Model | s-b χ2 | df | GFI | SRMSR | CFI a | NFI a | AGFI | PNFI b |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model I: Occupational competence effects on health and life satisfaction | 39.63 ** | 19 | 0.964 | 0.051 | 0.909 | 0.881 | 0.801 | 0.159 |
| Model II: Model I + the direct effects of social support | 20.84 | 15 | 0.980 | 0.035 | 0.974 | 0.937 | 0.862 | 0.134 |
| Model III: Model II + the effects of role overload | 17.21 | 10 | 0.984 | 0.030 | 0.968 | 0.948 | 0.828 | 0.090 |
Notes: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.005. The index value of chi-square for the null model does not explain at all the matrix of covariances: χ2(105) = 331.95. Robust index, calculated using s-b χ2; Parsimony index calculated using the parsimony ratio between the degrees of freedom of the tested model to the degrees of freedom of the null model. A value higher than 0.90 for the GFI, CFI and NFI indices and lower than 0.10 for the SRMSR index is considered an indication of acceptable goodness of fit.
Figure 2Parameter estimates in the three models (N = 150). Figure 2 shows standards estimates. The value at the beginning of an external line indicates standard error variance (percentage of unexplained variance in the endogenous variable). The bright line indicates that the effect is not significant. Black lines describe Model I, dotted red lines describe the additional effects in Model II, and blue lines describe the additional effects in Model III.