TABLE 2.
Unemployment rates: prevalence of unemployment by site and spirometric chronic airflow obstruction (CAO) status
| Subjects# n | Unemployment % | Crude OR (95% CI)¶ | ||
| CAO | No CAO | |||
| Total | 11 675 | |||
| High-income | ||||
| Bergen, Norway | 397 | 20.0 | 9.5 | 2.1 (1.0–4.2) |
| Hannover, Germany | 361 | 25.0 | 20.8 | 1.2 (0.6–2.5) |
| Krakow, Poland | 350 | 57.9 | 41.4 | 1.4 (1.0–1.9) |
| Lexington, USA | 305 | 61.0 | 27.7 | 2.2 (1.6–3.0) |
| Lisbon, Portugal | 320 | 53.9 | 39.8 | 1.4 (0.9–2.0) |
| London, UK | 427 | 40.4 | 24.3 | 1.7 (1.1–2.4) |
| Maastricht, the Netherlands | 396 | 31.3 | 20.4 | 1.5 (1.0–2.3) |
| Reykjavik, Iceland | 557 | 14.0 | 3.3 | 4.2 (1.8–10.1) |
| Salzburg, Austria | 860 | 35.2 | 25.4 | 1.4 (1.1–1.8) |
| Sydney, Australia | 339 | 20.0 | 15.3 | 1.3 (0.6–3.0) |
| Tartu, Estonia | 348 | 20.0 | 7.8 | 2.6 (0.9–7.5) |
| Uppsala, Sweden | 371 | 23.8 | 6.0 | 4.0 (1.7–9.5) |
| Vancouver, Canada | 594 | 21.8 | 11.5 | 1.9 (1.1–3.3) |
| Low- to middle-income | ||||
| Adana, Turkey | 487 | 41.1 | 45.4 | 0.9 (0.7–1.2) |
| Annaba, Algeria | 408 | 50.0 | 24.6 | 2.0 (1.2–3.3) |
| Cape Town, South Africa | 510 | 52.2 | 33.5 | 1.6 (1.2–2.0) |
| Fes, Morocco | 335 | 41.7 | 53.7 | 0.8 (0.5–1.3) |
| Guangzhou, China | 359 | 35.7 | 49.9 | 0.7 (0.4–1.5) |
| Ile-Ife, Nigeria | 667 | 5.1 | 7.6 | 0.7 (0.2–2.7) |
| Kashmir, India | 366 | 7.6 | 1.3 | 5.8 (1.5–22.9) |
| Manila, Philippines | 594 | 10.3 | 19.5 | 0.5 (0.2–1.4) |
| Mumbai, India | 250 | 17.7 | 10.3 | 1.7 (0.6–5.1) |
| Nampicuan Talugtug, Philippines | 493 | 23.2 | 14.7 | 1.6 (0.9–2.7) |
| Pune, India | 671 | 6.5 | 4.1 | 1.6 (0.4–6.4) |
| Sousse, Tunisia | 390 | 53.3 | 46.1 | 1.2 (0.7–1.9) |
| Tirana, Albania | 520 | 0.0 | 5.0 | |
#: retirees (age limit defined as ≥65 years) and homemakers/caregivers were excluded from the analysis. ¶: calculated based on prevalence of unemployment among subjects with CAO divided by prevalence of unemployment among subjects without CAO. A ratio >1 indicates higher unemployment prevalence among CAO subjects than among non-CAO subjects, while a ratio <1 indicates lower unemployment prevalence among CAO subjects.