Socioeconomic status and quality of life in population-based Australian men: data from the Geelong Osteoporosis Study

Authors

  • Sharon L. Brennan,

    1. NorthWest Academic Centre, Department of Medicine, Sunshine Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Victoria; School of Medicine, Deakin University, Victoria; Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science, Victoria
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lana J. Williams,

    1. School of Medicine, Deakin University, Victoria; Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Victoria
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Michael Berk,

    1. School of Medicine, Deakin University, Victoria; Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne, Victoria; Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, Victoria; Mental Health Research Institute, Victoria
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Julie A. Pasco

    1. NorthWest Academic Centre, Department of Medicine, Sunshine Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Victoria; School of Medicine, Deakin University, Victoria
    Search for more papers by this author

Correspondence to: Dr Sharon Brennan, NorthWest Academic Centre, Department of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, C/-Geelong Osteoporosis Study, Barwon Health, PO Box 281, Geelong, VIC 3220; e-mail: sbrennan@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

Objective : To investigate the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and reported perceptions of quality of life (QOL) in a cross-sectional population-based analysis of a representative sample of Australian men.

Methods : In 917 randomly recruited men aged 24–92 years, we measured QoL in the domains of physical health, psychological health, environment and social relationships, using the Australian World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument (WHOQOL-BREF). Residential addresses were cross-referenced with Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 census data to ascertain SES. Participants were categorised into lower, mid, or upper SES based on the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Advantage (IRSAD), the Index of Economic Resources (IER), and the Index of Education and Occupation (IEO). Lifestyle and health information was self-reported.

Results : Males of lower SES reported poorer satisfaction with physical health (OR=0.6, 95%CI 0.4–0.9, p=0.02), psychological health (OR=0.4, 95%CI 0.3–0.7, p<0.001) and environment (OR=0.5, 95%CI 0.3–0.7, p<0.001), although not social relationships (p=0.59). The poorest QOL for each domain was observed in the lower and upper SES groups, representing an inverse U-shaped pattern of association; however, statistical significance was only observed for psychological health (OR=0.5, 95%CI 0.4–0.7, p<0.001). These relationships were similar for IEO and IER.

Conclusions : Men from lower and upper SES groups have lower QOL compared to their counterparts in the mid SES group.

Ancillary