Upload
scott-reeves
View
220
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Wellbeing in Kings CountyResults from the GPI Community
SurveyMike Pennock
Martha Pennock
Ron Colman
Majority of residents are satisfied with their lives…
37.07
41.4139.45
53.5251.37 52.33
9.427.23 8.21
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
Male Female Total
Very satisf ied
Somew hat satisf ied
Somew hat satisf ied
% who are very satisfied
35.29
29.83 30.91
36.80
50.5453.59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Life-satisfaction…….
• Increases with income (probably levels off in upper income)
• Highest among retirees and homemakers
• Mid-range for employed persons and students
• Lowest among unemployed
What would increase life-satisfaction
Spend more time with family/friends 72 %
Less stress 71%
More financially secure 68%
More money 53%
Doing more for community 49%
More possessions 16%
Core Values
Values and Life-Satisfaction
• Positive social values associated with life-satisfaction
• Materialistic values were not
• Consistent with literature
Alienation?
Spirituality
• 60%- spiritual values played an important role
• Higher in females (65%) than males (55%)
• Increases with age from 37% among youngest to 79% among over 65
Unemployment
• 12.7% higher than corresponding NS and can rates
• Highest among youngest (42%). Lowest among 35-44 (8.5%)
Strongly associated with education
37.5
15.2
8.887.66 7.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Less than 9 9 to 12 College University Other
% o
f re
spo
nd
ents
Unemployed
• 52% of unemployed were long-term (25 weeks+)
• 16% were pessimistic about finding work
• Both higher among males
Part-time
• 15% working part-time
• Higher in females (22%) than males (8%)
• 15% of part-timers are involuntary
• Higher among females (17%) than males (9%)
Benefits
Full-time Part-time
Pension 61 25
Health 69 23
Dental 58 17
Sick 66 26
Vacation 79 44
Education 23 5
Self-rated Health
• 52% excellent or very good
• 18% poor or fair
• No gender differences
• Health declined with age
• Increased with income
Substantial income effects
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Very Good to Excellent 30.24 41.42 51.80 60.35 66.84
Poor to Good 69.76 58.58 48.20 39.65 33.16
-20,00020,000 to 34,999
35,000 to 49,999
50,000 to 69,999
70,000+
Also in chronic disease prevalence
0
5
10
15
20
25
-20,000 20,000 to34,999
35,000 to49,999
50,000 to69,999
70,000+
HBP
Arthritis/Rheumatism
Back Problems
and activity restrictions
30.96
24.93
16.36
13.67
10.90
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
-20,000 20,000 to 34,900 35,000 to 49,900 50,000 to 69,900 70,000+
Smoking
• 17% daily smokers- close to nat’l average and slightly lower than NS rate
• No gender differences• Highest among middle-aged (23%))• Lowest among 55+ (10%)• Mid-range among 35 and under (15%)• Income effect- from 23% to 12%
Obesity
• 23%- higher than NS (20%) and Canada (15%)
• No gender differences
• Highest in 25 to 34 and 45 to 64
• Lowest in 65+
• Highest in middle-income groups
Sedentary Lifestyle
• 19% with no gender differences
• No age effect
• U-shaped curve with age (highest in low income (21%) and highest income (22%)
Physical activities at least 5X per week
• 43%
• Males slightly higher (45%) than females (41%)
• U-shaped with age- lowest among middle-aged
• No income effect (positive)
Preventive practices past year
Mammogram 64% Much higher than NS and Canada rate
BP monitoring 74%
Pap smear 47% Lower than NS and Canada rate
Strong income effect
Breast exam by health professional
45% Strong income effect
Mental Health
Strong Age Effects
Difficulty in thinking clearly and solving problems
30.1428.88
18.3617.14
11.92
21.86
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
And emotional distress
38.51
28.42
23.08 22.12
12.0713.68
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Two or more symptoms
Depressed Mood
19.3318.09
14.8413.32
9.60
7.85
0
5
10
15
20
25
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Also,
Strong income effects on all measures
Gender effect on depressed mood but not others
Childhood Risk FactorsTotal Males Females
Parental Unemployment
15 15 15
Parental Substance Abuse
21 19 22
Child abuse 8 5.5 11
Adult effects
10.17
17.04
23.08
0
5
10
15
20
25
None One Tw o or three
% r
epro
tin
g d
epre
ssed
mo
od
Life Stress
6.59
43.23
37.01
13.17
7.35
48.04
33.33
11.277.01
45.88
34.99
12.13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
very stressful somew hat stressful not very stressful not at all stressful
Male Female Total
Somewhat or very stressful
Peaks in middle-age
50.67
63.64
69.70
64.24
40.20
21.10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Some income effect
49.59 48.35
54.69 53.15
60.27
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-20,000 20,000 to 34,900 35,000 to 49,900 50,000 to 69,900 70,000+
% o
f g
rou
p s
tres
sed
One and two-income families
% of Respondents In One and Two-Income Families Reporting
Somewhat or Very Stressful Lives
37.9
65.1
020406080
One-Income Two-Income
Stressed lives
• 43 % consider themselves workaholics
• Only 15% planned on cutting back next year
Stressed lives cont’d
53% Cutback on sleep
53% Don’t have fun anymore
43% Don’t accomplish what was planned
37% Not enough time with family and friends
31% Always trying to accomplish too much
29% Trapped in a daily routine
Most higher in females
Job StressesMale Female Total
Too many demands 39 38 38
Too many hours 21 18 19
Too few hours 8 11 10
Lack of autonomy/
control
14 13 14
Risk of injury 12 5 8
Threat of layoff 12 14 13
Gender differences less pronounced
Would trade pay increases for fewer hours
25.56
23.1424.34
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Male Female Total
Volunteering
• 51% gave unpaid help to group or organization
• Highest among 35+
• Positive relationship with income
• 51% very satisfied and 41% somewhat satisfied
Reasons for not volunteering
No time 41%
Not interested 17%
Not asked 16%
Health problem 14%
Not aware 6%
Informal Volunteering
• Provided by 59%
• Higher in females (62%) than males (56%)
Willing to do more if asked
• 49% would give more time if asked
• Males- 55%
• Young (15 to 24) 76%
• Low income (58%)
Unpaid Caregiving
5.6
1
4.6
5.6
1.5
8.1
5.6
1.2
6.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Adult In Home Child In Home Adult Outside Home
Male Female Total
Higher in low-income homes
87.1 6.8 7.2
4.5
10.1
6.96.2
3.7 3.5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
-20,000 20-34,999 35-49,999 50-69,999 70,000+
Outside home Inside home
Social Support
Male Female Total
Someone you can count on in times of crisis
93.7 94.9 94.4
Someone to give you advice when making important decisions
90.6 92.3 91.5
Someone who makes you feel loved and cared for
94.4 94.9 94.7
Social Support
• Strong income gradient across categories
• Lowest among unemployed
Crime and security
• 14% of both genders had been victimized during past five years
• Peaked among middle-aged and lowest among elderly
• Highest (20%) in high income
• Lowest (9%) in low income26% knoew someone else who had been victimized
Safety
• 97% were satisfied with their sense of safety from crime
• Males more likely to be “very satisfied”• 28% felt neighbourhood was very safe
(44% for males)• 45% felt it was reasonably safe• Females more likely to not walk alone at
night 22% vs 15%
Understanding the ecological footprint
Income Quintile
1st Quintile
2nd Quintile
3rd Quintile
4th Quintile
5th Quintile
Consumption expenditure
9,949 10,550 11,131 12,995 17,001
Ecological footprint 6.2 6.6 7.0 8.1 10.7
Source: GPI Atlantic, The Nova Scotia Ecological Footprint, March 2001
Vehicle Use
Vehicles per household
Kms/Vehicle per year
Household Kms
-20,000 1.0 17,777 13,772
20,000-34,999 1.4 19,268 22,629
35,000-49,999 1.5 20,861 27,530
50,000-69,999 1.8 20,966 34,665
70,000 2.0 22,600 40,384
Higher income households more likely to own minivans and SUV’s
Ecological AttitudesMale Female Total
The way we live produces too much waste 84.9 84.9 84.9
The way we live consumes too many resources 80.8 76.7 78.6
We focus too much on getting what we want now and not enough on conserving resources for future generations
83.1 83.0 83.0
Most of us buy and consume more than we need. 84.3 88.3 86.5
Today’s youth are too focussed on buying and consuming thin
73.8 81.3 77.9
I spend nearly all of my money on the basic necessities of life
40.4 55.5 48.6
If I wanted to, I could choose to buy and consume less than I do.
68.5 65.6 66.9
Out of Balance Lives
• Socially motivated persons who see themselves as living in a materialistic society
• Want less stress and more time with families• Highly stressed particularly in two-income
families (particularly females)• 25% would trade pay increase for reduced hours• Recognize that they over consume and the
ecological consequences
Continuing Inequities
• Lower income households have poorer mental and physical health, and disabilities
• Lowest levels of social support
• Higher levels of care-giving
Health Challenges
• Higher rates of obesity
• Don’t forget the young– Mental health issues
The Good
• High levels of health and wellbeing
• High levels of social support
• High levels of safety
• Strong volunteerism
• Strong ecological commitment