Department of Public Health, Graduate School, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea; Department of Hospital Management, Graduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Nov;120:49-56. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.09.001. Epub 2014 Sep 4.
Our objective was to investigate whether gaps between socioeconomic stratum and subjective social class affect the prevalence of depressive symptoms. We collected data from the Korean Health Panel Survey, years 2009 and 2011, and performed a longitudinal analysis of 12,357 individuals at baseline (2009), estimating the prevalence of depressive symptoms among individuals with disparate socioeconomic stratum (High, Middle, or Low household income and education level, respectively) and subjective social class (High, Middle, or Low). The odds ratio for depressive symptoms among individuals with High household income and High social class, or Low household income and Low social class, was 0.537 and 1.877, respectively (p<0.0001), and that among individuals with High education level and High social class, or Low education and Low social class, was 0.700 and 1.597, respectively (p: 0.001, p<0.0001, respectively). The likelihood of having depressive symptoms increased within each level of income and education, as the subjective social class decreased from High to Low. The adjusted effect of the gap between socioeconomic stratum and subjective social class on depressive symptoms deteriorated, as a whole, across the socioeconomic spectrum. The gap between socioeconomic stratum and perceived position in the social hierarchy explains a substantial part of inequalities in the prevalence of depressive symptoms. It is important to consider the impact of discrepancies between different measures of socioeconomic well-being on depressive symptoms rather than looking at the subjective social class alone.
我们的目的是调查社会经济阶层差距和主观社会阶层是否会影响抑郁症状的流行率。我们收集了 2009 年和 2011 年韩国健康面板调查的数据,并对 12357 名基线(2009 年)个体进行了纵向分析,分别估计了在社会经济阶层(高、中、低家庭收入和教育水平)和主观社会阶层(高、中、低)不同的个体中抑郁症状的流行率。家庭收入高和社会阶层高的个体患抑郁症状的比值比为 0.537,家庭收入低和社会阶层低的个体为 1.877(p<0.0001),教育水平高和社会阶层高的个体为 0.700,教育水平低和社会阶层低的个体为 1.597(p:0.001,p<0.0001)。随着主观社会阶层从高到低,每个收入和教育水平的个体患抑郁症状的可能性都增加了。主观社会阶层与社会经济阶层差距对抑郁症状的调整效应在整个社会经济范围内恶化。社会经济阶层差距和感知社会阶层位置之间的差距解释了抑郁症状流行率不平等的很大一部分。考虑不同衡量社会经济福祉的指标之间的差异对抑郁症状的影响很重要,而不仅仅是单独考虑主观社会阶层。