Table 1.
Descriptive statistics (2002, 2006, 2011 and 2015)
Variable | Year | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
2002 N = 926 |
2006 N = 4003 |
2011 N = 6569 |
2015 N = 2012 |
|
Self- rated health status | ||||
Very bad | 0.8% | 2.2% | 2.0% | 2.3% |
Bad | 4.2% | 6.1% | 4.9% | 5.4% |
Average | 21.7% | 20.3% | 24.2% | 22.8 |
Good | 43.7% | 37.5% | 41.3% | 40.7% |
Very good | 25.5% | 32.6% | 27.5% | 28.8% |
Urbanization | ||||
Urban | – | 63.5% | 73.9% | 74.3% |
Rural | – | 36.5% | 26.1% | 25.7% |
Gender | ||||
Male | 39.4% | 49.3% | 48% | 47.6% |
Female | 58.3% | 50.7% | 52% | 52.4% |
Marital Status | ||||
Married | – | 59.4% | 69.4% | 63.4% |
Single | – | 29% | 20.4 | 25% |
Divorced | – | 2.8% | 2.9% | 3.1% |
Widow | – | 7.6% | 7.3% | 8.5% |
Number of family membersa | – | – | 2.99(2.12) | 2.94(1.33) |
Public health insurance | ||||
Yes | – | 95% | 95.1% | 91.9% |
No | – | 4.1% | 4.6% | 7.3% |
Private health insurance | ||||
Yes | – | 11.9% | 15.6% | 13.2% |
No | – | 85.6% | 83.6% | 85.5% |
Age | ||||
18–24 | 2.9% | 1.5% | 6.7% | 9.4% |
25–39 | 24.9% | 13.3% | 25.1% | 25.9% |
40–54 | 32.4% | 22.1% | 28.1% | 26.4% |
55–64 | 17.7% | 16.1% | 17.6% | 15.4% |
65+ | 19.4% | 46.4% | 22.4% | 22.9% |
Existence of chronic disease | ||||
Yes | – | 36.4% | 40.1% | 42.1% |
No | – | 62.7% | 59.9% | 57.9% |
Social networkb | ||||
0 | – | – | – | 3.4% |
1–2 | – | – | – | 28.7% |
3–5 | – | – | – | 46.6% |
Over 6 | – | – | – | 21.2% |
Self-rated SES | ||||
Scale 1 – Lowest social status | – | – | – | 4.3% |
Scale 2 | – | – | – | 3.1% |
Scale 3 | – | – | – | 5.6% |
Scale 4 | – | – | – | 7.6% |
Scale 5 | – | – | – | 25.7% |
Scale 6 | – | – | – | 15.2% |
Scale 7 | – | – | – | 17.4% |
Scale 8 | – | – | – | 10.2% |
Scale 9 | – | – | – | 2.7% |
Scale 10 – Higher social status | – | – | – | 2.0% |
aAverage figure of family members is showed (std deviation)
bSocial network has been measured via the question “how many people do you feel close with so you can count on them?”