4.6 Article

Childhood socioeconomic status and adulthood mental health: results from the survey on employees of Tehran University of Medical Sciences

期刊

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 10-17

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdab004

关键词

mental health; socioeconomic factors; stress

资金

  1. Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS) [36600]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found an association between childhood socioeconomic status and mental health in adulthood, with individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds being at higher risk for depression, stress and anxiety. Strategies need to be implemented to improve the mental health of this high-risk group.
Background Socioeconomic status, especially during childhood, is known as one of the key factors affecting health. This study's objective was to investigate the association between childhood socioeconomic and mental health status in adulthood. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted on 2062 employees of Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Depression, stress and anxiety were measured using the validated DASS-42 questionnaire. A self-rated question was used to assess childhood socioeconomic status. Other variables including age, sex, marital status, and also wealth index, were measured. Linear regression models were used to analyze the data. Results 24.6% of men and 33.8% of women had degrees of depression (mild, moderate, severe or very severe). 32.9% of men and 29.4% of women had mild, moderate, severe or very severe anxiety. 36.3% of men and 45.2% of women also exhibited mild, moderate, severe or very severe stress. Results showed after adjusting for the current socioeconomic status, childhood socioeconomic status has a relationship with the mental health of individuals. Conclusion People with a suboptimal childhood socioeconomic status seem to be a high-risk group for depression, stress and anxiety in adulthood. Strategies need to put into practice to improve the mental health of these people.

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

4.6
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