Table 1.
Regressions of total family income and continuous income component measures on type and number of early-onset mental disorders among WMH respondents who were 18-64 years old at the time of interview1
| Total household income |
Personal earnings among the employed |
Spouse earnings among those with an employed spouse |
Other Household income |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Est (SE) | Est (SE) | Est (SE) | Est (SE) | |
|
|
||||
| I. Mental disorders 2 | ||||
| Mood disorders | ||||
| Major depression or dysthymia | −.02 (.02) | −.06* (.02) | .01 (.04) | .11* (.04) |
| Broad spectrum bipolar disorder | −.08 (.05) | −.02 (.06) | −.03 (.08) | .09 (.09) |
| Anxiety disorders | ||||
| Panic disorder | −.02 (.05) | −.07 (.07) | −.08 (.07) | .11 (.08) |
| Generalized anxiety disorder | −.04 (.05) | −.02 (.05) | .04 (.10) | −.03 (.08) |
| Social phobia | −.02 (.02) | −.01 (.03) | −.00 (.04) | −.07 (.04) |
| Specific phobia | −.04* (.02) | −.05 (.03) | −.09* (.04) | .02 (.04) |
| Agoraphobia without panic | −.17* (.06) | −.25* (.06) | −.22 (.13) | −.01 (.09) |
| Post-traumatic stress disorder | −.07 (.04) | .00 (.05) | .01 (.06) | −.13 (.09) |
| Separation anxiety disorder | −.03 (.03) | −.02 (.04) | −.02 (.05) | .05 (.06) |
| Disruptive behavior disorders | ||||
| Oppositional-defiant disorder | .05 (.03) | .04 (.05) | −.04 (.07) | .16* (.07) |
| Conduct disorder | −.02 (.04) | −.03 (.04) | .07 (.08) | −.03 (.07) |
| Attention/deficit-hyperactivity disorder | .03 (.03) | .03 (.04) | −.03 (.09) | −.02 (.09) |
| Intermittent explosive disorder | .04 (.03) | .05 (.03) | .00 (.06) | −.03 (.06) |
| Substance disorders | ||||
| Alcohol abuse3 | −.04 (.03) | .01 (.04) | −.03 (.06) | −.14* (.07) |
| Alcohol abuse with dependence | −.08 (.06) | −.08 (.06) | −.08 (.11) | −.04 (.12) |
| Drug abuse3 | −.03 (.04) | −.08 (.05) | −.10 (.09) | .10 (.09) |
| Drug abuse with dependence | .01 (.07) | .01 (.08) | .03 (.13) | −.04 (.13) |
| χ 2 17 4 | 60.5* | 67.4* | 21.9 | 27.8* |
| χ 2 16 5 | 29.6* | 44.4* | 11.2 | 26.5* |
| II. Number of disorders 2 | ||||
| Exactly 1 disorder | −.02 (.02) | −.02 (.02) | −.03 (.03) | .00 (.03) |
| Exactly 2 disorders | −.02 (.02) | −.01 (.03) | .01 (.04) | −.03 (.04) |
| Exactly 3 disorders | −.08* (.03) | −.10* (.03) | −.11 (.07) | .06 (.06) |
| Exactly 4 disorders | −.18* (.04) | −.09 (.06) | −.18 (.10) | −.01 (.08) |
| 5+ disorders | −.18* (.04) | −.17* (.05) | −.26* (.07) | .07 (.07) |
| χ 2 5 4 | 40.0* | 22.4* | 15.1* | 2.7 |
| (n) | (37,741) | (25,460) | (18,213) | (37,741) |
Significant at the 0.05 level, two-sided test
Based on GLM multiple regression models with controls for country, sex, level of education, and time since completing education estimated in all countries other than New Zealand and Ukraine. The latter countries were excluded because the surveys in these countries did not assess components of family income. The equations for total household income and other income use a log link function and Poisson error variance structure, while the equations for personal earnings among the employed and spouse earnings among those with an employed spouse use a linear link function and normally distributed error structure. Exponentiated values of the log link function coefficients can be interpreted as the ratio of expected incomes among respondents with versus without the predictor disorder. For example, coefficients of −.05, −.10, − .15, and −.20 represent mean income ratios of .95, .90, .86, and .82 among respondents with versus without the predictor disorder. The linear link function coefficients, in comparison, can be interpreted as the mean income difference between respondents with versus without the predictor disorder.
The results in Parts I and II are for two different models. The first model has a separate dummy predictor variable for each mental disorder assessed in the surveys. The second model includes a set of dummy predictor variables for the number of disorders the respondent had without distinguishing types of disorders. We also investigated models that included predictors for both type and number of disorders as well as models that included interactions between type and number of disorders, but the less complex models shown here out-performed those other models.
With or without dependence
Joint significance of the coefficients associated with the disorders assessed in the model
Significance of differences among the coefficients associated with the disorders assessed in the model