Skip to main content
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
. 2002 Sep;56(9):671–681. doi: 10.1136/jech.56.9.671

Housing and inequalities in health: a study of socioeconomic dimensions of housing and self reported health from a survey of Vancouver residents

J Dunn 1
PMCID: PMC1732232  PMID: 12177083

Abstract

Study objective: To investigate the relation between housing, socioeconomic status, and self reported general and mental health. This study is an empirical investigation of social and economic dimensions of housing, specifically, demand, control, and material (affordability, dwelling type) and meaningful (pride in dwelling, home as a refuge) dimensions of everyday life as they occur in the domestic environment.

Design: A cross sectional telephone survey was administered to a random sample of households. Survey items included measures of demand, control, and meaningfulness of the domestic environment, as well as standard measures of socioeconomic status and social support. Main outcome measures were self reported health (excellent, very good, good, fair, poor) and self reported frequency of feeling "downhearted and blue" in the two weeks before interview (from the Rand Mental Health Index).

Setting: Households (n=650) from 12 neighbourhood areas in the city of Vancouver, Canada.

Participants: One randomly selected adult from each of 650 households completed the interview and constitute the sample for this study.

Main results: In bivariate analyses, measures of housing demand, control and meaningfulness exhibited strong and significantly graded relations with self reported health and somewhat less strong relations with mental health. In logistic regression analyses housing demand and control variables made significant contributions to health both general and mental health. Respondents were more likely to report fair/poor health if they: reported that they couldn't stand to be at home sometimes (OR=2.29, p<0.05); rated their domestic housework as somewhat or quite a strain (OR=5.71, p<0.001); were somewhat or very dissatisfied with their social activities (OR=3.41, p<0.001); and reported that they were constantly under stress a good bit of the time or more (OR=3.56, p<0.05). In terms of mental health, respondents were more likely to report poorer mental health if they: lived longer in their neighbourhood (OR=1.05, p<0.05); reported their housework duties to be somewhat or quite a strain (OR=5.55, p<0.001); reported that they did not have somebody that could help them if they needed it (OR=9.28, p<0.001); and reported that they were constantly under stress a good bit of the time or more in the two weeks before the interview (OR=5.26, p<0.001). One of the main hypotheses investigated—that meaningful dimensions of housing are associated with health status—found support in bivariate analyses without controls, but did not contribute to multivariable models.

Conclusions: The influence of housing demand and control variables superseded a well known correlate of health status, educational attainment, attesting to their importance. The findings of this paper lend support to the hypothesis that features of the domestic environment, especially as they pertain to the exercise of control and the experience of demand, are significant predictors of self reported general and mental health status. Housing is a concrete manifestation of socioeconomic status, which has an important part to play in the development of explanations of the social production of health inequalities.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (350.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Berwick D. M., Murphy J. M., Goldman P. A., Ware J. E., Jr, Barsky A. J., Weinstein M. C. Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care. 1991 Feb;29(2):169–176. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199102000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Gold M., Franks P., Erickson P. Assessing the health of the nation. The predictive validity of a preference-based measure and self-rated health. Med Care. 1996 Feb;34(2):163–177. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199602000-00008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hall E. M. Double exposure: the combined impact of the home and work environments on psychosomatic strain in Swedish women and men. Int J Health Serv. 1992;22(2):239–260. doi: 10.2190/7VW4-GE0D-WRKU-Q62V. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hoeymans N., Feskens E. J., Kromhout D., van den Bos G. A. Ageing and the relationship between functional status and self-rated health in elderly men. Soc Sci Med. 1997 Nov;45(10):1527–1536. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(97)00089-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lynch J. W., Smith G. D., Kaplan G. A., House J. S. Income inequality and mortality: importance to health of individual income, psychosocial environment, or material conditions. BMJ. 2000 Apr 29;320(7243):1200–1204. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7243.1200. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Macintyre S., Ellaway A., Der G., Ford G., Hunt K. Do housing tenure and car access predict health because they are simply markers of income or self esteem? A Scottish study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998 Oct;52(10):657–664. doi: 10.1136/jech.52.10.657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Macintyre S., Hiscock R., Kearns A., Ellaway A. Housing tenure and car access: further exploration of the nature of their relations with health in a UK setting. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001 May;55(5):330–331. doi: 10.1136/jech.55.5.330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Matthews S., Power C., Stansfeld S. A. Psychological distress and work and home roles: a focus on socio-economic differences in distress. Psychol Med. 2001 May;31(4):725–736. doi: 10.1017/s0033291701003683. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Miilunpalo S., Vuori I., Oja P., Pasanen M., Urponen H. Self-rated health status as a health measure: the predictive value of self-reported health status on the use of physician services and on mortality in the working-age population. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997 May;50(5):517–528. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00045-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Mitchell R., Gleave S., Bartley M., Wiggins D., Joshi H. Do attitude and area influence health? A multilevel approach to health inequalities. Health Place. 2000 Jun;6(2):67–79. doi: 10.1016/s1353-8292(00)00004-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Weinstein M. C., Berwick D. M., Goldman P. A., Murphy J. M., Barsky A. J. A comparison of three psychiatric screening tests using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Med Care. 1989 Jun;27(6):593–607. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198906000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Wilkinson R. G. Two pathways, but how much do they diverge? BMJ. 1999 Oct 9;319(7215):956–957. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. van Doorslaer E., Wagstaff A., Bleichrodt H., Calonge S., Gerdtham U. G., Gerfin M., Geurts J., Gross L., Häkkinen U., Leu R. E. Income-related inequalities in health: some international comparisons. J Health Econ. 1997 Feb;16(1):93–112. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(96)00532-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES