Table 2.
Distribution of working conditions, demographics and health status before retirement in each cluster of workers
| Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | Cluster 5 | Cluster 6 | Cluster 7 | Cluster 8 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n=2839 | n=1541 | n=842 | n=1186 | n=2138 | n=2440 | n=1450 | n=942 | ||
| Working conditions | Good | 737 (26%) | 0 (0%) | 342 (40.6%) | 724 (61%) | 970 (45.4%) | 599 (24.5%) | 386 (26.6%) | 225 (23.9%) |
| Average | 936 (33%) | 0 (0%) | 276 (32.8%) | 459 (38.7%) | 1056 (49.4%) | 882 (36.1%) | 616 (42.5%) | 327 (34.7%) | |
| Bad | 1166 (41.1%) | 1541 (100%) | 224 (26.6%) | 3 (0.3%) | 111 (5.2%) | 959 (39.3%) | 447 (30.8%) | 390 (41.4%) | |
| Retirement age | Earlier (37 to 52 y) | 1072 (37.8%) | 425 (27.6%) | 124 (14.7%) | 139 (11.7%) | 477 (22.3%) | 782 (32%) | 429 (29.6%) | 909 (96.5%) |
| Medium (53 to 54 y) | 1233 (43.4%) | 582 (37.8%) | 259 (30.8%) | 204 (17.2%) | 654 (30.6%) | 990 (40.6%) | 468 (32.3%) | 33 (3.5%) | |
| Later (55 to 60 y) | 534 (18.8%) | 534 (34.7%) | 459 (54.5%) | 843 (71.1%) | 1007 (47.1%) | 668 (27.4%) | 553 (38.1%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Sex | Women | 774 (27.3%) | 114 (7.4%) | 92 (10.9%) | 128 (10.8%) | 475 (22.2%) | 422 (17.3%) | 374 (25.8%) | 196 (20.8%) |
| Men | 2065 (72.7%) | 1427 (92.6%) | 750 (89.1%) | 1058 (89.2%) | 1663 (77.8%) | 2018 (82.7%) | 1076 (74.2%) | 746 (79.2%) | |
| Birth year | 1947 to 1954 | 2837 (99.9%) | 2 (0.1%) | 1 (0.1%) | 13 (1.1%) | 4 (0.2%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (0.3%) | 942 (100%) |
| 1944 to 1946 | 2 (0.1%) | 0 (0%) | 839 (99.6%) | 10 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2440 (100%) | 734 (50.6%) | 0 (0%) | |
| 1939 to 1943 | 0 (0%) | 1539 (99.9%) | 2 (0.2%) | 1163 (98.1%) | 2134 (99.8%) | 0 (0%) | 712 (49.1%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Retirement year | 2001 to 2003 | 2668 (94%) | 34 (2.2%) | 371 (44.1%) | 202 (17%) | 128 (6%) | 491 (20.1%) | 215 (14.8%) | 0 (0%) |
| 1999 to 2000 | 0 (0%) | 46 (3%) | 319 (37.9%) | 310 (26.1%) | 250 (11.7%) | 1114 (45.7%) | 430 (29.7%) | 942 (100%) | |
| 1991 to 1998 | 171 (6%) | 1461 (94.8%) | 152 (18.1%) | 674 (56.8%) | 1760 (82.3%) | 835 (34.2%) | 805 (55.5%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Social position | High | 530 (18.7%) | 264 (17.1%) | 842 (100%) | 1186 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (0.1%) | 114 (12.1%) |
| Middle | 1703 (60%) | 878 (57%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 2137 (100%) | 2435 (99.8%) | 1 (0.1%) | 644 (68.4%) | |
| Low | 606 (21.3%) | 399 (25.9%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0%) | 5 (0.2%) | 1447 (99.8%) | 184 (19.5%) | |
| Hospitalization¥ | No | 2384 (84%) | 1312 (85.1%) | 714 (84.8%) | 987 (83.2%) | 1818 (85%) | 2045 (83.8%) | 1230 (84.8%) | 796 (84.5%) |
| Yes | 455 (16%) | 229 (14.9%) | 128 (15.2%) | 199 (16.8%) | 320 (15%) | 395 (16.2%) | 220 (15.2%) | 146 (15.5%) | |
| Physical illness¥,µ | No | 2617 (92.2%) | 1421 (92.2%) | 770 (91.4%) | 1089 (91.8%) | 2000 (93.5%) | 2238 (91.7%) | 1309 (90.3%) | 866 (91.9%) |
| Yes | 222 (7.8%) | 120 (7.8%) | 72 (8.6%) | 97 (8.2%) | 138 (6.5%) | 202 (8.3%) | 141 (9.7%) | 76 (8.1%) | |
| High sickness absence¥ | No | 2229 (78.5%) | 1094 (71%) | 731 (86.8%) | 1041 (87.8%) | 1650 (77.2%) | 1879 (77%) | 959 (66.1%) | 711 (75.5%) |
| Yes | 610 (21.5%) | 447 (29%) | 111 (13.2%) | 145 (12.2%) | 488 (22.8%) | 561 (23%) | 491 (33.9%) | 231 (24.5%) | |
| Depression¥ | No | 2345 (82.6%) | 1219 (79.1%) | 706 (83.8%) | 1024 (86.3%) | 1855 (86.8%) | 2000 (82%) | 1166 (80.4%) | 728 (77.3%) |
| Yes | 494 (17.4%) | 322 (20.9%) | 136 (16.2%) | 162 (13.7%) | 283 (13.2%) | 440 (18%) | 284 (19.6%) | 214 (22.7%) | |
| Musculoskeletal problems¥ | No | 1429 (50.3%) | 584 (37.9%) | 434 (51.5%) | 631 (53.2%) | 942 (44.1%) | 1116 (45.7%) | 674 (46.5%) | 435 (46.2%) |
| Yes | 1410 (49.7%) | 957 (62.1%) | 408 (48.5%) | 555 (46.8%) | 1196 (55.9%) | 1324 (54.3%) | 776 (53.5%) | 507 (53.8%) | |
| Sleep problems¥ | No | 2127 (74.9%) | 998 (64.8%) | 646 (76.7%) | 898 (75.7%) | 1544 (72.2%) | 1730 (70.9%) | 1034 (71.3%) | 666 (70.7%) |
| Yes | 712 (25.1%) | 543 (35.2%) | 196 (23.3%) | 288 (24.3%) | 594 (27.8%) | 710 (29.1%) | 416 (28.7%) | 276 (29.3%) | |
Cluster 1 younger workers who retired between 2001 and 2003, Cluster 2 older workers with bad working conditions who retired between 1991 and 1998, Cluster 3 younger retired workers with high social position, Cluster 4 older retired workers with high social position, Cluster 5 older retired workers with middle social position, Cluster 6 younger retired workers with middle social position, Cluster 7 retired workers with low social position, Cluster 8 younger workers who retired between 1999 and 2000
Values in bold indicate that nearly all participants from the cluster have the corresponding characteristics