Josep L Conde-Sala1, Cristina Portellano-Ortiz2, Laia Calvó-Perxas3, Josep Garre-Olmo3,4. 1. Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron, 171, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. jllconde@ub.edu. 2. Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Passeig Vall d'Hebron, 171, 08035, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Girona Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBGI), Salt, Spain. 4. Department of Medical Sciences, University of Girona, Girona, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyse the clinical, sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors that influence perceived quality of life (QoL) in a community sample of 33,241 people aged 65+ and to examine the relationship with models of social welfare in Europe. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of data from Wave 5 (2013) of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). The instruments used in the present study were as follows: sociodemographic data, CASP-12 (QoL), EURO-D (depression), indicators of life expectancy and suicide (WHO), and economic indicators (World Bank). Statistical analysis included bivariate and multilevel analyses. RESULTS: In the multilevel analysis, greater satisfaction in life, less depression, sufficient income, better subjective health, physical activity, an absence of functional impairment, younger age and participation in activities were associated with better QoL in all countries. More education was only associated with higher QoL in Eastern European and Mediterranean countries, and only in the latter was caring for grandchildren also related to better QoL. Socioeconomic indicators were better and QoL scores higher (mean = 38.5 ± 5.8) in countries that had a social democratic (Nordic cluster) or corporatist model (Continental cluster) of social welfare, as compared to Eastern European and Mediterranean countries, which were characterized by poorer socioeconomic conditions, more limited social welfare provision and lower QoL scores (mean = 33.5 ± 6.4). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived quality-of-life scores are consistent with the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants, as well as with the socioeconomic indicators and models of social welfare of the countries in which they live.
PURPOSE: To analyse the clinical, sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors that influence perceived quality of life (QoL) in a community sample of 33,241 people aged 65+ and to examine the relationship with models of social welfare in Europe. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of data from Wave 5 (2013) of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). The instruments used in the present study were as follows: sociodemographic data, CASP-12 (QoL), EURO-D (depression), indicators of life expectancy and suicide (WHO), and economic indicators (World Bank). Statistical analysis included bivariate and multilevel analyses. RESULTS: In the multilevel analysis, greater satisfaction in life, less depression, sufficient income, better subjective health, physical activity, an absence of functional impairment, younger age and participation in activities were associated with better QoL in all countries. More education was only associated with higher QoL in Eastern European and Mediterranean countries, and only in the latter was caring for grandchildren also related to better QoL. Socioeconomic indicators were better and QoL scores higher (mean = 38.5 ± 5.8) in countries that had a social democratic (Nordic cluster) or corporatist model (Continental cluster) of social welfare, as compared to Eastern European and Mediterranean countries, which were characterized by poorer socioeconomic conditions, more limited social welfare provision and lower QoL scores (mean = 33.5 ± 6.4). CONCLUSIONS: Perceived quality-of-life scores are consistent with the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants, as well as with the socioeconomic indicators and models of social welfare of the countries in which they live.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ageing; European countries; Health; Models of social welfare; Quality of life; Socioeconomic factors
Authors: M J Prince; F Reischies; A T Beekman; R Fuhrer; C Jonker; S L Kivela; B A Lawlor; A Lobo; H Magnusson; M Fichter; H van Oyen; M Roelands; I Skoog; C Turrina; J R Copeland Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Christopher J L Murray; Michael A Richards; John N Newton; Kevin A Fenton; H Ross Anderson; Charles Atkinson; Derrick Bennett; Eduardo Bernabé; Hannah Blencowe; Rupert Bourne; Tasanee Braithwaite; Carol Brayne; Nigel G Bruce; Traolach S Brugha; Peter Burney; Mukesh Dherani; Helen Dolk; Karen Edmond; Majid Ezzati; Abraham D Flaxman; Tom D Fleming; Greg Freedman; David Gunnell; Roderick J Hay; Sally J Hutchings; Summer Lockett Ohno; Rafael Lozano; Ronan A Lyons; Wagner Marcenes; Mohsen Naghavi; Charles R Newton; Neil Pearce; Dan Pope; Lesley Rushton; Joshua A Salomon; Kenji Shibuya; Theo Vos; Haidong Wang; Hywel C Williams; Anthony D Woolf; Alan D Lopez; Adrian Davis Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Alba Ayala; Carmen Rodríguez-Blázquez; Amaia Calderón-Larrañaga; Giorgi Beridze; Laetitia Teixeira; Lia Araújo; Fermina Rojo-Pérez; Gloria Fernández-Mayoralas; Vicente Rodríguez-Rodríguez; Víctor Quirós-González; Vanessa Zorrilla-Muñoz; María Silveria Agulló-Tomás; Oscar Ribeiro; Maria João Forjaz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Oscar Ribeiro; Laetitia Teixeira; Lia Araújo; Carmen Rodríguez-Blázquez; Amaia Calderón-Larrañaga; Maria João Forjaz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-04 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Francesc Xavier Gomez-Olive; Julia Schröders; Isabella Aboderin; Peter Byass; Somnath Chatterji; Justine I Davies; Cornelius Debpuur; Siddhivinayak Hirve; Abraham Hodgson; Sanjay Juvekar; Kathleen Kahn; Paul Kowal; Rose Nathan; Nawi Ng; Abdur Razzaque; Osman Sankoh; Peter K Streatfield; Stephen M Tollman; Siswanto A Wilopo; Miles D Witham Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2017-12-20