4.3 Article

Quality of Life, Health and the Great Recession in Spain: Why Older People Matter?

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18042028

关键词

Spain; quality of life; older people; recession; SHARE; logistic regressions

资金

  1. IDIVAL [INNVAL20/03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Spain, the financial crisis of 2008 did not significantly impact the quality of life (QoL) of elders, but factors like chronic conditions had a noticeable effect on their satisfaction. A decrease in household income during the crisis period increased the likelihood of reporting a low QoL. Health and socioeconomic factors play crucial roles in determining individual QoL.
The financial crisis of 2008 precipitated the Great Recession. In this scenario, we took Spain as a country of study, because although it experienced significant negative shocks associated with macroeconomic variables (GDP or unemployment), its welfare indicators have been marked by limited changes. This study used data from waves 2 and 4 (years 2006-2007 and 2010-2012, respectively) of the Survey on Health, Aging and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). Specifically, through logistic regressions we have analysed the effects of socioeconomic, demographic, health and Great Recession factors on the quality of life (QoL) of elders in Spain. Although QoL did not change too much during the Great Recession, the results confirmed the importance of several factors (such as chronicity) that affect the satisfaction with the QoL among the older people. In this regard, statistically significant effects were obtained for individual exposure to recession. Therefore, a decrease in household income in the crisis period with respect to the pre-crisis period would increase by 44% the probability of reporting a low QoL (OR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.00-2.07). Furthermore, gender differences were observed. Health and socioeconomic variables are the most significant when determining individual QoL. Therefore, when creating policies, establishing multidisciplinary collaborations is essential.

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