4.3 Article

It's no surprise! Men are not hit more than women by the health consequences of unemployment in the Northern Swedish Cohort

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 187-193

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1403494810394906

关键词

Cohort studies; gender studies; public health epidemiology; social epidemiology; unemployment; health

资金

  1. Swedish Council for Social Research
  2. Medical Faculty of Umea University
  3. Umea Centre for Global Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Research often fails to ascertain whether men and women are equally hit by the health consequences of unemployment. The aim of this study was to analyze whether men's self-reported health and health behaviour were hit more by unemployment than women's in a follow-up of the Northern Swedish Cohort. Methods: A follow-up study of a cohort of all school leavers in a middle-sized industrial town in northern Sweden was performed from age 16 to age 42. Of those still alive of the original cohort, 94% (n = 1,006) participated during the whole period. A sample was made of participants in the labour force and living in Sweden (n = 916). Register data were used to assess the length of unemployment from age 40 to 42, while questionnaire data were used for the other variables. Results: In multivariate logistic regression analyses significant relations between unemployment and mental health/smoking were found among both women and men, even after control for unemployment at the time of the investigation and indicators of health-related selection. Significant relations between unemployment and alcohol consumption were found among women, while few visits to a dentist was significant among men. Conclusions: Men are not hit more by the health consequences of unemployment in a Swedish context, with a high participation rate of women in the labour market. The public health relevance is that the study indicates the need to take gendered contexts into account in public health research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据