| Literature DB >> 29017558 |
S G Anjara1, L B Nellums2, C Bonetto3, T Van Bortel1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a global increase in migrant workers. In Singapore, there are over 230,000 migrant domestic workers (MDWs). Female MDWs may experience high levels of stress and social isolation, which may negatively impact on their health and quality of life. There have also been documented cases of abuse and exploitation. However, there is a lack of empirical research with this population. This study aimed to investigate factors impacting on the health and quality of life of female MDWs in Singapore, including socio-demographic and job related characteristics, stress, social isolation, and working management style.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29017558 PMCID: PMC5634837 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-017-0442-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Socio-demographic and job related characteristics of participants
| Characteristics | Participants ( |
|---|---|
| Age (2 missing) | |
| < 30 | 50 (27.8%) |
| 30–39 | 83 (46.1%) |
| 40–49 | 38 (21.1%) |
| 50+ | 9 (5.0%) |
| Education (5 missing) | |
| Low (Primary/Secondary) | 108 (61.0%) |
| High (Diploma/University) | 69 (39.0%) |
| Marital status (1 missing) | |
| Married | 75 (41.4%) |
| Single | 79 (43.6%) |
| Widowed/Divorced | 27 (14.9%) |
| Country of origin | |
| The Philippines | 104 (57.1%) |
| Indonesia | 68 (37.4%) |
| Myanmar/Sri Lanka | 10 (5.5%) |
| Religion | |
| Islam | 56 (30.8%) |
| Catholic | 76 (41.8%) |
| Christian | 41 (22.5%) |
| Buddhist/Sikh | 7 (3.8%) |
| No religion | 2 (1.1%) |
| First job | |
| No | 86 (47.3%) |
| Yes | 96 (52.7%) |
| Previous work country (for women who worked before) | |
| Singapore | 10 (11.6%) |
| Malaysia/Brunei | 9 (10.5%) |
| Hong Kong/Taiwan | 17 (19.8%) |
| Arabian Peninsula | 20 (23.2%) |
| North America | 1 (1.2%) |
| Home country | 29 (33.7%) |
| Working experience (years) (5 missing) | |
| ≤ 2 | 24 (13.6%) |
| 2–6 | 71 (40.1%) |
| 6–10 | 36 (20.3%) |
| 10–20 | 41 (23.2%) |
| > 20 | 5 (2.8%) |
This table displays the characteristics of the study participants (n = 182), including their socio-demographic characteristics and employment characteristics
Quality of life, stress, social connectedness, and working management style levels
| Instrument | Participants ( |
|---|---|
| mean (sd), or n (%) | |
| WHOQoL-Bréf | |
| Overall QoL | 3.8 (0.7) |
| Satisfaction with health (1 missing) | 4.0 (0.8) |
| I Physical health (3 missing) | 67.7 (11.9) |
| II Psychological health (2 missing) | 67.8 (12.0) |
| III Social relationships (11 missing) | 63.6 (14.6) |
| IV Environment (3 missing) | 66.2 (15.0) |
| Do you feel stressed? (20 missing) | |
| Yes | 85 (52.5%) |
| No | 77 (47.5%) |
| Friendship Scale (10 missing), quintiles | |
| Very isolated | 9 (5.2%) |
| Isolated | 25 (14.5%) |
| Some isolation | 48 (27.9%) |
| Socially connected | 51 (29.7%) |
| Very connected | 39 (22.7%) |
| X-Y Theory Questionnaire | |
| Situation and management style (9 missing) | |
| 0–15 Strongly X (Autocratic leadership) | 11 (6.4%) |
| 16–44 Generally X | 66 (38.2%) |
| 45–59 Generally Y | 47 (27.2%) |
| 60–75 Strongly Y (Effective leadership) | 49 (28.3%) |
| Preference for management style (12 missing) | |
| 0–15 Strongly X (Autocratic leadership) | 8 (4.7%) |
| 16–44 Generally X | 35 (20.6%) |
| 45–59 Generally Y | 54 (31.8%) |
| 60–75 Strongly Y (Effective leadership) | 73 (42.9%) |
| Agreement between experienced and preferred management style (13 missing) | |
| Yes | 107 (63.3%) |
| No | 62 (36.7%) |
This table describes the quality of life, stress, social connectedness, and working management style levels of study participants
Relationship between quality of life and socio-demographic and job related characteristics*
| WHOQoL-Bréf, mean (sd) | Characteristics |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | ||||||
| <30 | 30–39 | 40–49 | 50+ | |||
| Overall QoL (2 missing) | 3.5 (0.9) | 3.9 (0.5) | 3.9 (0.8) | 4.3 (0.7) | <0.001 | |
| Satisfaction with health (3 missing) | 3.9 (1.0) | 4.0 (0.7) | 4.1 (0.6) | 3.9 (1.3) | 0.621 | |
| I Physical health (5 missing) | 65.8 (13.1) | 67.1 (12.0) | 70.8 (10.1) | 72.2 (9.7) | 0.152 | |
| II Psychological health (4 missing) | 62.4 (13.7) | 68.4 (9.7) | 71.9 (11.4) | 78.2 (11.9) | <0.001 | |
| III Social relationships (13 missing) | 59.4 (13.7) | 62.9 (14.0) | 69.4 (14.0) | 66.7 (21.6) | 0.017 | |
| IV Environment (5 missing) | 61.2 (17.1) | 65.6 (13.5) | 70.3 (13.5) | 79.2 (7.8) | 0.001 | |
| Country of origin | ||||||
| The Philippines | Indonesia | Myanmar/ Sri Lanka | ||||
| Overall QoL | 3.7 (0.7) | 4.0 (0.7) | 3.3 (0.9) | 0.002 | ||
| Satisfaction with health (1 missing) | 3.9 (0.7) | 4.3 (0.7) | 3.3 (1.3) | <0.001 | ||
| IPhysical health (3 missing) | 67.2 (12.7) | 68.2 (10.3) | 68.6 (14.6) | 0.843 | ||
| II Psychological health (2 missing) | 68.4 (11.3) | 68.4 (11.9) | 57.9 (16.8) | 0.027 | ||
| III Social relationships (11 missing) | 62.1 (14.3) | 66.0 (13.9) | 62.5 (22.3) | 0.248 | ||
| IV Environment (3 missing) | 63.9 (14.5) | 70.5 (12.5) | 59.7 (25.6) | 0.006 | ||
| Working experience (years) | ||||||
| ≤2 | 2–6 | 6–10 | 10–20 | >20 | ||
| Overall QoL (5 missing) | 3.6 (0.8) | 3.5 (0.8) | 4.0 (0.4) | 4.0 (0.6) | 4.4 (0.9) | <0.001 |
| Satisfaction with health (6 missing) | 3.8 (0.9) | 3.9 (0.9) | 4.2 (0.6) | 4.0 (0.8) | 4.4 (0.6) | 0.257 |
| I Physical health (8 missing) | 65.7 (13.9) | 66.7 (12.5) | 67.9 (10.6) | 68.7 (11.4) | 76.4 (4.07) | 0.405 |
| II Psychological health (7 missing) | 64.8 (11.4) | 65.4 (11.5) | 69.2 (11.8) | 70.6 (11.7) | 78.3 (18.0) | 0.028 |
| III Social relationships (16 missing) | 57.5 (14.4) | 62.9 (14.3) | 64.1 (13.9) | 66.0 (14.7) | 81.7 (9.1) | 0.012 |
| IV Environment (8 missing) | 58.4 (17.7) | 63.5 (14.1) | 69.1 (12.5) | 70.1 (14.5) | 83.7 (8.7) | <0.001 |
*Only significant associations are reported, p < 0.05
This table describes the relationship between quality of life and socio-demographic and job related characteristics among study participants
Association between quality of life and stress, social connectedness, and working management style*
| Do you feel stressed? |
| |||||
| WHOQoL-Bref, mean (sd) | No | Yes | ||||
| Overall QoL (20 missing) | 4.1 (0.7) | 3.6 (0.7) | <0.001 | |||
| Satisfaction with health (20 missing) | 4.3 (0.7) | 3.8 (0.9) | <0.001 | |||
| I Physical health (21 missing) | 71.2 (12.0) | 64.7 (11.4) | <0.001 | |||
| II Psychological health (21 missing) | 71.7 (12.1) | 64.7 (11.4) | <0.001 | |||
| III Social relationships (25 missing) | 67.4 (13.0) | 60.9 (14.7) | 0.004 | |||
| IV Environment (22 missing) | 71.6 (14.0) | 61.6 (14.6) | <0.001 | |||
| Do you feel stressed? |
| |||||
| Friendship Scale, n (%) (24 missing) | No | Yes | ||||
| Very isolated/Isolated | 7 (25.0%) | 21 (75.0%) | 0.001a | |||
| Some isolation | 17 (37.8%) | 28 (62.2%) | ||||
| Socially connected/Very connected | 52 (61.2%) | 33 (38.8%) | ||||
| Mean score (sd) | 20.0 (6.5) | 17.6 (3.4) | <0.001 | |||
| Social connectedness |
| |||||
| WHOQoL-Bref, mean (sd) | Very isolated | Isolated | Some isolation | Socially connected | Very connected | |
| Overall QoL (5 missing) | 3.6 (0.9) | 3.5 (0.8) | 3.7 (0.7) | 4.0 (0.6) | 4.1 (0.7) | 0.002 |
| Satisfaction with health (6 missing) | 3.6 (1.2) | 3.8 (0.7) | 4.0 (0.8) | 4.0 (0.8) | 4.2 (0.8) | 0.156 |
| I Physical health (8 missing) | 58.7 (11.0) | 64.9 (14.0) | 65.7 (11.6) | 68.3 (11.3) | 72.8 (11.0) | 0.005 |
| II Psychological health (7 missing) | 61.1 (10.8) | 61.5 (12.9) | 67.2 (9.1) | 68.6 (11.9) | 73.0 (13.7) | 0.002 |
| III Social relationships (16 missing) | 52.8 (18.6) | 58.3 (13.0) | 60.9 (15.3) | 63.3 (13.5) | 73.6 (10.6) | <0.001 |
| IV Environment (8 missing) | 53.8 (17.4) | 58.2 (16.9) | 62.5 (13.2) | 68.1 (13.0) | 75.4 (12.5) | <0.001 |
| Agreement between experienced and preferred working management style |
| |||||
| WHOQoL-Bref, mean (sd) | No | Yes | ||||
| Overall QoL (13 missing) | 3.7 (0.8) | 3.9 (0.7) | 0.026 | |||
| Satisfaction with health (13 missing) | 3.8 (0.9) | 4.1 (0.8) | 0.027 | |||
| I Physical health (13 missing) | 64.6 (12.9) | 69.6 (11.4) | 0.009 | |||
| II Psychological health (13 missing) | 65.0 (12.7) | 69.8 (11.5) | 0.014 | |||
| III Social relationships (18 missing) | 61.2 (15.7) | 65.0 (14.1) | 0.107 | |||
| IV Environment (14 missing) | 61.4 (16.9) | 69.1 (13.1) | 0.001 | |||
*Only significant associations are reported, p < 0.05
aThe categories ‘Very isolated’ and ‘Isolated’ were summed up due to low frequencies; the categories ‘Socially connected’ and ‘Very connected’ were summed up due to low frequencies
This table describes the association between quality of life and stress, social connectedness, and working management style
Linear regression models for quality of life with socio-demographic characteristics, stress, social isolation, and agreement between experienced and preferred working management style (n = 182)
| Dependent variable (Beta coefficients, p-value) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent variables | Overall QoL | Satisfaction with health | Physical health | Psychological health | Social relationships | Environment |
| Block 1: Socio-demographics | Adj-R2 = 13.2% | Adj-R2 = 5.8% | Adj-R2 = 1.8% | Adj-R2 = 8.5% | Adj-R2 = 4.2% | Adj-R2 = 15.7% |
| Age (years) | 0.216 (p = 0.009) | −0.029 ( | 0.047 ( | 0.207 ( | 0.077 ( | 0.170 ( |
| Country of origin (ref. Indonesia) | 0.217 ( | 0.174 ( | 0.001 ( | −0.016 ( | 0.103 ( | 0.209 (p = 0.005) |
| Block 2: Stress | Adj-R2 = 7.1% | Adj-R2 = 5.6% | Adj-R2 = 5.6% | Adj-R2 = 7.8% | Adj-R2 = 3.4% | Adj-R2 = 6.4% |
| Do you feel stressed? (ref. Yes) | −0.250 ( | −0.243 ( | −0.197 ( | −0.236 ( | −0.110 ( | −0.167 ( |
| Block 3: Social isolation | Adj-R2 = 0.7% | Adj-R2 = 0.3% | Adj-R2 = 3.0% | Adj-R2 = 2.8% | Adj-R2 = 5.2% | Adj-R2 = 7.9% |
| Friendship Scale | 0.120 ( | 0.056 ( | 0.201 ( | 0.201 ( | 0.277 ( | 0.319 ( |
| Block 4: X-Y Theory Questionnaire | Adj-R2 = 0.8% | Adj-R2 = 1.1% | Adj-R2 = 3.4% | Adj-R2 = 1.7% | Adj-R2 = 0.1% | Adj-R2 = 3.0% |
| Agreement | 0.115 ( | 0.150 ( | 0.203 (p = 0.009) | 0.150 ( | 0.062 ( | 0.187 ( |
| % Variance Explained by the final model | 21.8% | 12.8% | 13.8% | 20.8% | 12.9% | 33.0% |
This table presents the models in which linear regression was used to examine the impact of socio-demographic characteristics, stress, social isolation, and agreement between experienced and preferred working management style on quality of life for study participants