Table 3.
Associations of number of early-onset mental disorders predicting total household income in sub-samples defined by sex and country income level1
| Number of disorders |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exactly 1 disorder |
Exactly 2 disorders |
Exactly 3 disorders |
Exactly 4 disorders |
5+ disorders | χ 2 5 2 | (n) | |
| Est (SE) | Est (SE) | Est (SE) | Est (SE) | Est (SE) | |||
|
|
|||||||
| I. Low/lower-middle income countries | |||||||
| Men | .02 (.05) | .18* (.08) | .04 (.16) | −.15 (.18) | −.38 (.41) | 6.2 | (5,654) |
| Women | .00 (.04) | .06 (.10) | −.24* (.12) | −.10 (.12) | −.20 (.42) | 5.5 | (6,508) |
| Total | .01 (.03) | .11 (.07) | −.08 (.12) | −.13 (.10) | −.32 (.30) | 6.9 | (12,162) |
| II. Upper-middle income countries | |||||||
| Men | .00 (.06) | .17* (.07) | −.07 (.12) | .17 (.14) | −.17 (.13) | 10.2 | (3,310) |
| Women | −.03 (.15) | .07 (.06) | −.09 (.09) | −.04 (.16) | −.40* (.17) | 11.6* | (4,745) |
| Total | −.02 (.04) | .11* (.04) | −.09 (.07) | .10 (.09) | −.26* (.10) | 21.0* | (8,055) |
| III. High income countries | |||||||
| Men | −.04 (.03) | −.16* (.03) | −.13* (.04) | −.21* (.08) | −.10 (.05) | 41.3* | (7,600) |
| Women | −.04 (.02) | −.07 (.04) | −.03 (.05) | −.29* (.07) | −.30* (.07) | 29.9* | (9,924) |
| Total | −.04* (.02) | −.11* (.03) | −.08* (.03) | −.25* (.04) | −.17* (.04) | 57.7* | (17,524) |
| IV. All countries | |||||||
| Men | −.02 (.02) | −.03 (.03) | −.10* (.04) | −.11 (.06) | −.11* (.05) | 10.9 | (16,564) |
| Women | −.03 (.02) | −.01 (.03) | −.06 (.04) | −.23* (.06) | −.30* (.07) | 28.9* | (21,177) |
| Total | −.02 (.02) | −.02 (.02) | −.08* (.03) | −.18* (.04) | −.18* (.04) | 40.0* | (37,741) |
Significant at the 0.05 level, two-sided test
Based on GLM multiple regression models with controls for country, level of education, time since completing education, and sex (in the models that combine men and women) estimated in all countries other than New Zealand and Ukraine. See Footnote 1 in Table 1 for the rationale for excluding these two countries. The equations all use a log link function and Poisson error variance structure. Exponentiated values of the coefficients can be interpreted as the ratio of expected incomes among respondents with versus without the predictor disorder. For example, coefficients of −.05, −.10, −.20, and −.30 represent mean income ratios of .95, .90, .82, and .74 among respondents with versus without the predictor disorder.
Joint significance of the coefficients associated with the disorders assessed in the model