OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine cross-sectional and prospective associations between perceived sex discrimination and health and well-being in a sample from the United Kingdom. METHOD: Data were from 2,956 women aged ≥16 years who participated in the U.K. Household Longitudinal Study. Perceived discrimination was reported in 2009-2010. Psychological distress, mental functioning, life satisfaction, and self-rated health were assessed in 2009-2010 and 2013-2014. Depression was assessed in 2009 and 2010. Linear and logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, income, education, and ethnicity. Prospective analyses adjusted for baseline well-being. RESULTS: Perceived sex discrimination was reported by 576 (19.5%) participants. Younger, wealthier, better educated, White women reported more discrimination (p < .001). Cross-sectionally, perceived discrimination was associated with increased depression (odds ratio [OR] = 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI; 2.10, 4.79]) psychological distress (B = 1.26, 95% CI [0.95, 1.56]), poorer mental functioning (B = -5.39, 95% CI [-6.33, -4.46]), lower life satisfaction (B = -0.52, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.36]), and greater odds of poor self-rated health (OR = 1.89, 95% CI [1.47, 2.41]). Prospectively, perceived sex discrimination was associated with increased psychological distress (B = 0.66, 95% CI [0.07, 1.24]), poorer mental functioning (B = -1.37, 95% CI [-2.71, -0.03]), and lower life satisfaction (B = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.05]) over 4-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Women who perceive that they have been discriminated against based on their sex report poorer mental health and well-being than those who do not perceive discrimination. These results provide cross-sectional and prospective evidence of associations between perceived sex discrimination and mental well-being outcomes in U.K. women. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine cross-sectional and prospective associations between perceived sex discrimination and health and well-being in a sample from the United Kingdom. METHOD: Data were from 2,956 women aged ≥16 years who participated in the U.K. Household Longitudinal Study. Perceived discrimination was reported in 2009-2010. Psychological distress, mental functioning, life satisfaction, and self-rated health were assessed in 2009-2010 and 2013-2014. Depression was assessed in 2009 and 2010. Linear and logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, income, education, and ethnicity. Prospective analyses adjusted for baseline well-being. RESULTS: Perceived sex discrimination was reported by 576 (19.5%) participants. Younger, wealthier, better educated, White women reported more discrimination (p < .001). Cross-sectionally, perceived discrimination was associated with increased depression (odds ratio [OR] = 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI; 2.10, 4.79]) psychological distress (B = 1.26, 95% CI [0.95, 1.56]), poorer mental functioning (B = -5.39, 95% CI [-6.33, -4.46]), lower life satisfaction (B = -0.52, 95% CI [-0.69, -0.36]), and greater odds of poor self-rated health (OR = 1.89, 95% CI [1.47, 2.41]). Prospectively, perceived sex discrimination was associated with increased psychological distress (B = 0.66, 95% CI [0.07, 1.24]), poorer mental functioning (B = -1.37, 95% CI [-2.71, -0.03]), and lower life satisfaction (B = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.05]) over 4-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:Women who perceive that they have been discriminated against based on their sex report poorer mental health and well-being than those who do not perceive discrimination. These results provide cross-sectional and prospective evidence of associations between perceived sex discrimination and mental well-being outcomes in U.K. women. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Yunjun Hu; Lingling Shu; Huilin Zhang; Chen Wang; Chengfu Yu; Guanyu Cui Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Mariah D Ehmke; Bhagyashree Katare; Kristin Kiesel; Jason S Bergtold; Jerrod M Penn; Kathryn A Boys Journal: Appl Econ Perspect Policy Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 4.890
Authors: Robert C Whitaker; Tracy Dearth-Wesley; Allison N Herman; Amy E Block; Mary Howard Holderness; Nicholas A Waring; J Michael Oakes Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Ruth A Hackett; Amy Ronaldson; Kamaldeep Bhui; Andrew Steptoe; Sarah E Jackson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Jacqueline de Souza; Carla Aparecida Arena Ventura; Jordana Luiza Gouvêa de Oliveira; Loraine Vivian Gaino; Juliana Cristina Dos Santos Monteiro; Jaqueline Lemos de Oliveira; Leticia Yamawaka de Almeida; Solina Richter; Denise Saint-Arnault Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-11 Impact factor: 3.390