Skip to main content
. 2018 Jan 17;18:145. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4992-2

Table 3.

Characteristics of respondents not followed-up and followed-up in COTASS-2, using data from COTASS-1

Lost to follow up (COTASS 1 only, N = 2059) Followed-up (COTASS1 + 2, N = 3876)a Lost to follow-up VS followed upb
% /mean (n) % /mean (n) p-value
Χ2 / t-test
Twin or singleton <0.001
 Twin 52.4 (1078) 73.5 (2849)
 Singleton 47.6 (981) 26.5 (1027)
Gender <0.001
 Male 52.5 (1082) 42.1 (1633)
 Female 47.5 (977) 57.9 (2243)
Mean age (years) 38.0 (2055) 36.7 (3876) <0.001
Age (years) <0.001
 16–24 25.1 (515) 23.7 (918)
 25–34 24.0 (494) 26.4 (1024)
 35–44 18.4 (379) 20.6 (798)
 45–54 15.0 (308) 16.2 (627)
 55–64 10.0 (205) 9.0 (349)
 65–74 5.3 (109) 3.5 (136)
 75 or over 2.2 (45) 0.6 (24)
Marital status 0.114
 Married 58.0 (1194) 61.4 (2378)
 Widowed 5.1 (105) 4.8 (185)
 Divorced/Separated 1.6 (32) 1.4 (53)
 Never married 35.3 (727) 32.4 (1255)
Ethnicity 0.001
 Sinhala 90.4 (1862) 93.4 (3619)
 Tamil 3.1 (63) 2.6 (102)
 Muslim 6.1 (126) 3.7 (145)
 Other 0.4 (8) 0.3 (10)
Urbanicity <0.001
 Semi-urban 56.8 (1170) 62.9 (2436)
 Urban 43.2 (889) 37.1 (1438)
Employment 0.118
 Not in employment 39.4 (809) 41.8 (1617)
 Student 8.2 (169) 8.0 (308)
 Part-time employment 13.0 (267) 14.2 (549)
 Full-time employment 39.3 (806) 36.1 (1396)
Social class 0.079
 Rich 30.5 (252) 25.9 (385)
 Middle class 33.3 (276) 34.9 (518)
 Poor 36.2 (299) 39.2 (583)
Financial strain 0.177
 Living comfortably 8.9 (183) 7.9 (304)
 Doing alright 64.1 (1316) 64.7 (2504)
 Just about getting by 13.0 (267) 14.6 (563)
 Difficult to make ends meet 8.9 (182) 8.7 (336)
 Very difficult to make ends meet 5.2 (106) 4.2 (162)
Hungry due to lack of money 0.653
 No 96.3 (1978) 96.0 (3716)
 Yes 3.7 (77) 4.0 (155)
Self-rated health 0.032
 Good, very good or excellent 57.5 (1179) 54.6 (2109)
 Fair or poor 42.5 (870) 45.4 (1756)
Depressive episode (lifetime)c 0.750
 No 94.6 (1945) 94.4 (3653)
 Yes 5.4 (110) 5.6 (215)

aFollowed-up respondents represent the cohort with data at both COTASS 1 and 2; COTASS 2 respondents which were excluded from COTASS 1 could not be included in these analyses (n = 93)

bAnalyses account for clustering by twins

cEstimated using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview