Socioeconomic factors, material inequalities, and perceived control in self-rated health: cross-sectional data from seven post-communist countries
This study examined the association between perceived control and several socioeconomic variables and self-rated health in seven post-communist countries (Russia, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic). Questionnaire interviews were used to collect data on self-rated health in the last 12 months, education, marital status, perceived control based on nine questions, and material deprivation based on availability of food, clothing and heating. For each population, two ecological measures of material inequalities were available: an inequality score estimated from the survey data as the distance between the 90th and 10th percentiles of material deprivation, and Gini coefficient from published sources. Data on 5330 men and women aged 20-60 were analysed. Prevalence of poor health (worse than average) varied between 8% in Czechs and 19% in Hungarians. The age-sex-adjusted odds ratio for university vs primary education was 0.36 (0.26-0.49); odds ratios per 1 standard deviation increase in perceived control and in material deprivation were 0.58 (95% CI 0.48-0.69) and 1.51 (1.40-1.63), respectively. The odds ratio for an increase in inequality equivalent to the difference between the most and the least unequal populations was 1.49 (0.88-2.52) using the material inequality score and 1.41 (0.91-2.20) using the Gini coefficient. No indication of an effect of either inequality measure was seen after adjustment for individuals' deprivation or perceived control. The results suggest that, as in western populations, education and material deprivation are strongly related to self-rated health. Perceived control appeared statistically to mediate some of the effects of material deprivation. The non-significant effects of both ecological measures of inequality were eliminated by controlling for individuals' characteristics.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 51 (2000)
Issue (Month): 9 (November)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:51:y:2000:i:9:p:1343-1350. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.