2017, Number 2-3
Socioeconomic status and perceived health-related quality of life in Chile
Full text
Language: English
References: 36
Page: 51-56
PDF size: 169.25 Kb.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Changes in the conceptualization of health and illness have led to development of theory and methods to study health-related quality of life. One instrument used frequently to measure this concept is the SF-12 survey, included in the Second National Health Survey carried out in Chile between 2009 and 2010.Objective Estimate the association between socioeconomic status stratifiers and health-related quality of life in the adult population residing in Chile.
Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of a subsample of the National Health Survey, in the population aged ≥25 years. Health-related quality of life was operationalized from two SF-12 composite scales: physical health-related quality of life and mental health-related quality of life. Both were categorized as good or poor relative to their median scores. Socioeconomic status stratifiers were education, employment status and monthly per capita household income. Multiple logistic regression models were generated for physical health-related quality of life and mental health-related quality of life, according to socioeconomic status stratifiers adjusted for several covariates.
Results The sample comprised 4473 respondents, 51.6% women, median age 47.8 years. The probability of poor quality of life was higher in persons with only primary school education, those not in the workforce and those whose monthly income was below 100,815 Chilean pesos (US$140); the effect was stronger for physical health-related quality of life (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.8–4.2; OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2–2.3 and OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.3–3.8, respectively) than for mental health-related quality of life (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.8; OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2–2.2 and OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1–3.0, respectively).
Conclusions The probability of poor health-related quality of life is higher in the worst socioeconomic status strata, and the effect is most pronounced in the most vulnerable groups. The direct effect of social stratifiers on living conditions and access to services both strong influences on subjective health would explain this finding and highlight the need to adopt equity-oriented strategies aimed at addressing the impact of socioeconomic status on health-related quality of life.
REFERENCES
Vega J, Solar O, Irwin A. Equidad y determinantes sociales de la salud: conceptos básicos, mecanismos de producción y alternativas para la acción. In: Iniciativa Chilena de Equidad en Salud, editor. Determinantes sociales de la salud en Chile: en la perspectiva de la equidad. Santiago de Chile: ICES; 2005. 86 p. Spanish.
Braveman P, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Chideya S, Marchi KS, Metzler M, et al. Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fi t all. JAMA [Internet]. 2005 Dec 14 [cited 2015 Nov 16];294(22):2879–88. Available from: https://jama network.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/10.1001/ jama.294.22.2879
World Health Organization [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; c2017. Programas y Proyectos. Determinantes Sociales de la Salud. Comisión sobre Determinantes Sociales de la Salud. Subsanar las desigualdades en una generación. Resumen Analítico del Informe Final; 2009 [cited 2015 Dec 3]; [4.73Mb]. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2008/WHO_IER _CSDH_08.1_spa.pdf?ua=1. Spanish.
Hoven H, Siegrist J. Work characteristics, socioeconomic position and health: a systematic review of mediation and moderation effects in prospective studies. Occup Environ Med [Internet]. 2013 Sep [cited 2015 Dec 18];70(9):663–9. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih .gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3756612&tool=pmc entre z&rendertype=abstract
van Hoorn A. A short Introduction to subjective wellbeing: Its measurement, correlates and Policy uses. Conference paper for the Second OECD World Forum on Statistics, Kowledge and Policy: Measuring and Foresting the Progress of Societies. Session on Measuring Happiness and Making Policy; 2007 Jun 27–30; Istambul, Turkey; 2007.
Delpierre C, Kelly-Irving M, Munch-Petersen M, Lauwers-Cances V, Datta GD, Lepage B, et al. SRH and HrQOL: does social position impact differently on their link with health status? BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2012 Jan 10 [cited 2016 Jan 5];12:19. Available from: http://www .pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid= 3287252&tool=pmcentre z&rendertype=abstract
Robert S, Cherepanov D, Palta M, Cross Dunham N, Feeny D, Fryback DG. Socioeconomic status and age variations in health-related quality of life: results from the national health measurement study. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci [Internet]. 2009 May [cited 2016 Jan 5];64B(3):378–89. Available from: http://www .pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid= 2670253&tool=pmcentre z&rendertype=abstract
Sun S, Chen J, Johannesson M, Kind P, Xu L, Zhang Y, et al. Population health status in China: EQ-5D results, by age, sex and socioeconomic status, from the National Health Services Survey 2008. Qual Life Res [Internet]. 2011 Apr [cited 2016 Jan 5];20(3):309–20. Available from: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ articlerender.fcgi?artid=3052443&tool=pmcentre z&rendertype=abstract
Soares J, Simões E, Ramos LR, Pratt M, Brownson RC. Cross-sectional associations of healthrelated quality of life measures with selected factors: a population-based sample in Recife, Brazil. J Phys Act Health [Internet]. 2010 Jul [cited 2016 Jan 5];7 Suppl 2:S229–41. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20702911