| Literature DB >> 29503389 |
Atsuhiko Ota1, Hiroshi Yatsuya1, Nobuo Nishi2, Nagako Okuda3, Takayoshi Ohkubo4, Takehito Hayakawa5, Aya Kadota6,7, Akira Okayama8, Katsuyuki Miura6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The distributions of socioeconomic status (SES) factors have been changing in Japan. We examined the relationships among SES and self-rated health (SRH) in Japanese adults.Entities:
Keywords: Japan; NIPPON DATA2010; cross-sectional study; self-rated health (SRH); socioeconomic status (SES)
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29503389 PMCID: PMC5825690 DOI: 10.2188/jea.JE20170246
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Epidemiol ISSN: 0917-5040 Impact factor: 3.211
Self-rated health conditions of subjects: NIPPON DATA2010
| Age, years | Point prevalence of SRH | |||||||
| Fine | Excellent | Very good | Good | Fair | Poor | Invalid response | ||
| Men | ||||||||
| 20–29 | 51 | 92% | 33% | 12% | 47% | 6% | 0% | 2% |
| 30–39 | 106 | 88% | 25% | 21% | 42% | 8% | 1% | 4% |
| 40–49 | 122 | 89% | 28% | 16% | 45% | 9% | 0% | 2% |
| 50–59 | 189 | 79% | 14% | 15% | 50% | 10% | 2% | 9% |
| 60–69 | 354 | 69% | 12% | 15% | 42% | 12% | 1% | 18% |
| 70–79 | 264 | 60% | 10% | 8% | 42% | 14% | 2% | 23% |
| ≥80 | 92 | 59% | 10% | 11% | 38% | 13% | 2% | 26% |
| Total | 1,178 | 72% | 15% | 14% | 44% | 11% | 1% | 15% |
| Women | ||||||||
| 20–29 | 62 | 77% | 24% | 15% | 39% | 13% | 3% | 6% |
| 30–39 | 224 | 85% | 23% | 24% | 39% | 8% | 2% | 5% |
| 40–49 | 179 | 81% | 15% | 21% | 45% | 12% | 1% | 7% |
| 50–59 | 267 | 79% | 12% | 17% | 50% | 10% | 1% | 10% |
| 60–69 | 407 | 65% | 11% | 11% | 43% | 13% | 2% | 21% |
| 70–79 | 315 | 56% | 7% | 11% | 38% | 14% | 3% | 26% |
| ≥80 | 101 | 58% | 3% | 14% | 42% | 15% | 2% | 25% |
| Total | 1,555 | 70% | 12% | 15% | 43% | 12% | 2% | 16% |
SRH, self-rated health.
Age-standardized point prevalence of a fine SRH condition: 79.1% (men) and 72.7% (women). The 2010 Japan National Census Population was used as a reference.
P for trend <0.001 was found for the relationship between age and the point prevalence of fine SRH in men and women (the Cochran-Armitage test for trends).
Relationships among socioeconomic status and fine self-rated health in men (n = 1,178): NIPPON DATA2010
| SES | Prevalence of fine SRH | Crude OR | Age-adjusted OR | Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| Adjusted OR | Adjusted OR | |||||
| Educational attainmenti | ||||||
| Elementary or junior high school | 290 | 169 (58%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| High school | 496 | 374 (75%) | 2.19 (1.61–2.99)*** | 1.58 (1.13–2.19)** | 1.55 (1.10–2.20)* | 1.53 (1.07–2.19)* |
| University or junior college | 383 | 306 (80%) | 2.85 (2.02–4.01)*** | 1.74 (1.20–2.51)** | 1.76 (1.19–2.59)** | 1.74 (1.15–2.62)** |
| Marital/living status | ||||||
| Married | 953 | 687 (72%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Single, not living alone | 112 | 93 (83%) | 1.90 (1.13–3.17)* | 1.07 (0.60–1.89) | 1.01 (0.55–1.83) | 0.93 (0.51–1.70) |
| Single, living alone | 113 | 74 (65%) | 0.73 (0.49–1.11) | 0.66 (0.43–1.01) | 0.63 (0.40–0.99)* | 0.65 (0.40–1.07) |
| Working status | ||||||
| Working | 718 | 568 (79%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Not working, including housemaking exclusively | 460 | 286 (62%) | 0.43 (0.33–0.56)*** | 0.75 (0.55–1.02) | 0.75 (0.54–1.05) | 0.72 (0.51–1.01) |
| Yearly household income, million JPYa | ||||||
| Less than 2 | 195 | 113 (58%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 through 6 | 655 | 488 (75%) | 2.05 (1.46–2.88)*** | 1.90 (1.34–2.70)*** | 1.82 (1.26–2.63)** | 1.64 (1.10–2.44)* |
| Greater than 6 | 224 | 178 (79%) | 2.63 (1.67–4.12)*** | 1.99 (1.24–3.18)** | 1.84 (1.13–3.02)* | 1.59 (0.94–2.70) |
| Invalid response | 104 | 75 (72%) | 1.76 (1.03–2.98)* | 1.56 (0.90–2.71) | 1.50 (0.84–2.68) | 1.38 (0.76–2.52) |
| Monthly equivalent household expenditureb,ii | ||||||
| 1st quintile (Lowest) | 217 | 148 (68%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2nd quintile | 244 | 175 (72%) | 1.18 (0.79–1.76) | 1.18 (0.78–1.80) | 1.15 (0.74–1.79) | |
| 3rd quintile | 238 | 170 (71%) | 1.17 (0.78–1.74) | 1.22 (0.80–1.86) | 1.18 (0.76–1.83) | |
| 4th quintile | 216 | 172 (80%) | 1.82 (1.18–2.82)** | 2.08 (1.32–3.28)** | 1.91 (1.19–3.08)** | |
| 5th quintile (Highest) | 214 | 156 (73%) | 1.26 (0.83–1.90) | 1.32 (0.86–2.03) | 1.32 (0.84–2.07) | |
CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; SES, socioeconomic status; SRH, self-rated health.
P value: *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001.
ORs were calculated using multiple logistic regression analyses, adjusted for age, having any subjective symptoms, and visiting a doctor in Model 1 and additionally adjusted for monthly equivalent household expenditure and living in their own house in Model 2.
aThe square root-transformed number of household members was adjusted.
bLiving in their own house was adjusted.
Number of missing responses: i = 9; ii = 49.
Relationships among socioeconomic status and fine self-rated health in women (n = 1,555): NIPPON DATA2010
| SES | Prevalence of fine SRH | Crude OR | Age-adjusted OR | Model 1 | Model 2 | |
| Adjusted OR | Adjusted OR | |||||
| Educational attainmenti | ||||||
| Elementary or junior high school | 366 | 213 (58%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| High school | 708 | 488 (69%) | 1.59 (1.23–2.07)*** | 1.23 (0.94–1.62) | 1.14 (0.86–1.53) | 1.02 (0.75–1.38) |
| University or junior college | 477 | 393 (82%) | 3.36 (2.45–4.60)*** | 1.95 (1.37–2.79)*** | 1.87 (1.29–2.70)*** | 1.65 (1.12–2.46)* |
| Marital/living status | ||||||
| Married | 1,100 | 803 (73%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Single, not living alone | 258 | 178 (69%) | 0.82 (0.61–1.11) | 0.86 (0.62–1.19) | 0.84 (0.60–1.18) | 0.84 (0.59–1.20) |
| Single, living alone | 197 | 114 (58%) | 0.51 (0.37–0.69)*** | 0.75 (0.53–1.05) | 0.70 (0.49–1.00)* | 0.77 (0.53–1.13) |
| Working status | ||||||
| Working | 672 | 522 (78%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Not working, including housemaking exclusively | 883 | 573 (65%) | 0.53 (0.42–0.67)*** | 0.80 (0.62–1.04) | 0.81 (0.62–1.07) | 0.76 (0.57–1.01) |
| Yearly household income, million JPYa | ||||||
| Less than 2 | 296 | 165 (56%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 through 6 | 794 | 568 (72%) | 1.85 (1.39–2.47)*** | 1.66 (1.24–2.23)*** | 1.70 (1.25–2.32)*** | 1.53 (1.09–2.14)* |
| Greater than 6 | 294 | 240 (82%) | 3.13 (2.10–4.64)*** | 2.34 (1.55–3.54)*** | 2.39 (1.55–3.69)*** | 2.15 (1.34–3.46)** |
| Invalid response | 171 | 122 (71%) | 1.78 (1.17–2.71)** | 1.71 (1.12–2.63)* | 1.94 (1.24–3.04)** | 2.19 (1.36–3.53)** |
| Equivalent monthly household expenditureb,ii | ||||||
| 1st quintile (Lowest) | 278 | 175 (63%) | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2nd quintile | 281 | 197 (70%) | 1.39 (0.97–1.98) | 1.26 (0.88–1.82) | 1.40 (0.95–2.06) | |
| 3rd quintile | 320 | 226 (71%) | 1.42 (1.01–2.00)* | 1.25 (0.87–1.79) | 1.30 (0.89–1.90) | |
| 4th quintile | 289 | 217 (75%) | 1.78 (1.24–2.55)** | 1.57 (1.08–2.29)* | 1.74 (1.18–2.59)** | |
| 5th quintile (Highest) | 304 | 224 (74%) | 1.64 (1.16–2.34)** | 1.48 (1.03–2.14)* | 1.80 (1.22–2.65)** | |
CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; SES, socioeconomic status; SRH, self-rated health.
P value: *<0.05, **<0.01, ***<0.001.
ORs were calculated using multiple logistic regression analyses, adjusted for age, having any subjective symptoms, and visiting a doctor in Model 1 and additionally adjusted for monthly equivalent household expenditure and living in their own house in Model 2.
aThe square root-transformed number of household members was adjusted.
bLiving in their own house was adjusted.
Number of missing responses: i = 4; ii = 83.