Table 11.
Examine the extent to which lifestyle or psychosocial factors explained the effect of socio-economic status on good SRH
| Variables | Category | Model 3b | Model 4b | Model 5b | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | OR | 95% CI | ||
| Demographic characteristics | |||||||
| Gender | Female | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
| Male | 1.22*** | (1.03–1.45) | 1.18* | (0.97–1.43) | 1.22** | (1.02–1.45) | |
| Age group | 18–29 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
| 30–39 | 0.41*** | (0.28–0.60) | 0.39*** | (0.26–0.57) | 0.45*** | (0.30–0.67) | |
| 40–49 | 0.27*** | (0.19–0.40) | 0.25*** | (0.17–0.37) | 0.30*** | (0.20–0.45) | |
| 50–59 | 0.17*** | (0.11–0.25) | 0.15*** | (0.10–0.22) | 0.19*** | (0.12–0.28) | |
| 60–69 | 0.15*** | (0.10–0.22) | 0.13*** | (0.09–0.20) | 0.13*** | 0.08–0.20) | |
| 70+ | 0.13*** | (0.08–0.20) | 0.12*** | (0.08–0.19) | 0.11*** | (0.07–0.18) | |
| Marital status | Divorced, separated, and widowed | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
| Married | 1.15 | (0.89–1.48) | 1.14 | (0.88–1.47) | 0.94 | (0.71–1.25) | |
| Single | 0.74 | (0.47–1.16) | 0.73 | (0.47–1.15) | 0.71 | (0.44–1.15) | |
| Residence | Rural | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
| Urban | 1.03 | (0.84–1.26) | 0.98 | (0.80–1.20) | 1.03 | (0.83–1.29) | |
| Regions | West | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
| East | 1.40*** | (1.14–1.72) | 1.37*** | (1.11–1.69) | 1.20 | (0.96–1.50) | |
| Middle | 1.23** | (1.00–1.51) | 1.23** | (1.00–1.51) | 1.14 | (0.92–1.42) | |
| Northeast | 2.02*** | (1.55–2.63) | 2.04*** | (1.56–2.67) | 1.69*** | (1.26–2.26) | |
| Socio-economic status | |||||||
| Education degree | Primary or no education | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
| Secondary education | 1.21** | (1.02–1.46) | 1.17 | (0.97–1.40) | 1.09 | (0.89–1.32) | |
| College or higher | 1.32* | (0.98–1.77) | 1.23 | (0.90–1.66) | 1.16 | (0.85–1.60) | |
| Work status | Not working | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
| Non-farm work | 1.61*** | (1.31–1.98) | 1.61*** | (1.30–1.98) | 1.58*** | (1.26–1.97) | |
| Farm work | 1.51*** | (1.19–1.91) | 1.49*** | (1.18–1.89) | 1.50*** | (1.16–1.94) | |
| Household Income (RMB/dollars) | ≤¥9999 (≤$1,510) | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
| ¥10000–49999 ($1,510–7,550) | 1.54*** | (1.25–1.92) | 1.52*** | (1.22–1.88) | 1.25* | (0.98–1.59) | |
| ¥50000–99999 ($7,550–15,099) | 1.77*** | (1.31–2.37) | 1.68*** | (1.25–2.27) | 1.17 | (0.85–1.62) | |
| ≥¥100000 (≥$15,099) | 1.94*** | (1.34–2.79) | 1.85*** | (1.28–2.68) | 1.34 | (0.90–1.99) | |
| Lifestyle factors | |||||||
| BMI | Normal weight | 1.00 | |||||
| Underweight | 0.65*** | (0.50–0.84) | |||||
| Over weight | 1.01 | (0.83–1.23) | |||||
| Obese | 0.70 | (0.44–1.12) | |||||
| Physical activity | Inactive | 1.00 | |||||
| Active | 1.30*** | (1.09–1.53) | |||||
| Smoking habit | No | 1.00 | |||||
| Yes | 1.18 | (0.96–1.44) | |||||
| Psychosocial factors | |||||||
| Life satisfaction | Happy life | 1.00 | |||||
| Unhappy life | 0.56*** | (0.42–0.75) | |||||
| Average | 0.68*** | (0.55–0.83) | |||||
| Depression | Severe | 1.00 | |||||
| Mild | 1.87*** | (1.39–2.51) | |||||
| Few or no | 7.55*** | (5.72–9.96) | |||||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.1154 | 0.1806 | 0.2071 | ||||
Model 3b controlled for demographic characteristics (except ethnicity variable, which was not correlated with SRH in univariate analysis) and socio-economic status factors
Model 4b also controlled lifestyle factors in addition to the factors controlled in model 3b
Model 5b also controlled for psychosocial factors in addition to the factors controlled in model 3b
OR odds ratio, 95% CI 95% Confidence Intervals
***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1
Note:
Data were from the Chinese General Social Survey (2010). The structure of the questionnaire in 2010 is similar to that in 2013
Since only 3,337 respondents reported smoking habit, so the data from these 3,337 respondents were complete
“Two subjective socio-economic status” variables and “Relationship with families and friends” can not be obtained from the dataset 2010. But we add “Smoking habit” variable (Yes = 1 No = 0) in the analysis