This study conducted a longitudinal analysis of the association between job satisfaction and stress or depressive symptoms of employed persons with disabilities (PWDs) based on the data from the 1st to 8th Pannel Survey of Employment for the Disabled (PSED).
Methods
After excluding missing values, data on 1614 participants at baseline (1st wave) were analyzed using the chi-square test and generalized estimating equation (GEE) model for data from 1st to 8thPSED.
Results
It was found that for each one-unit increase in the job satisfaction score, the stress scale decreased by 0.004 (B: −0.004, 95% CI: −0.006–−0.002, p-value: < 0.0001). Compared to the very high job satisfaction group, the low job satisfaction group was more likely to experience perceived stress (odds ratio [OR]: 2.127, p-value: 0.001) and experience depressive symptoms (OR: 3.557, p-value < 0.0001). Furthermore, in terms of the overall satisfaction with their current job among the PWDs, compared to the ‘satisfied’ group, the ‘unsatisfied’ group had higher perceived stress (OR: 1.593, p-value < 0.0001) and depressive symptoms (OR: 2.688, p-value < 0.0001).
Conclusions
There was a close association between job satisfaction and stress or depressive symptoms among employed PWDS. This study’s findings may serve as foundational research to support improving mental health in this population. In addition, it is anticipated that these findings can be used as evidence to improve the work environment for PWDs within the context of Korean corporate culture.
Job satisfactiondepressionpersons with disabilitiesstresswork environmentIntroduction
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) “World Disability Report,” globally, the number of persons with disabilities (PWDs) is continuously increasing due to population aging, rise of chronic diseases, and increased exposure to accidents [1]. In the past, welfare policies for PWDs were primarily centered around providing assistance from others to compensate for biological impairments [2]. However, more recently, policies have shifted toward encouraging the social participation of PWDs to enhance their quality of life [3]. To achieve this, efforts are being made globally to enact treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and laws, including the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), aiming to not only uphold the individual rights of PWDs but also promote rights within the work environment and facilitate social integration [4]. In Korea, as well, various legislations, such as the “Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities” and the “Mandatory Employment Allocation System,” have been established to facilitate the adaptation of PWDs in the work environment [5].
Since the enactment of legislation related to PWDs, the economic indicators thereof have consistently improved. In particular, certain metrics, such as “employment rate of PWDs,” “retention rate of employed PWDs,” and “accessibility to jobs for PWDs” have demonstrated a sharp upward trend [6,7]. However, it has been reported that, in contrast to the quantitative improvement in employment indicators for PWDs, qualitative employment conditions and work environment indicators are considerably worse for PWDs relative to persons without disabilities (PWODs) [8]. Indeed, according to the “Survey on the Status of PWDs” conducted by Korean health authorities, not only did 64% of employed PWDs experience discomfort within the workplace but also were a significant number of them to face employment instability, including low wages and part-time work [9]. In addition, compared to Japan and the United States, which have similar “Mandatory Employment Allocation Act for Persons with Disabilities”, South Korea has significantly lower employment rates and welfare budgets for the PWDs [10]. Furthermore, according to a report from the International Labor Organization [11], PWDs naturally experience psychological distress and worsened health outcomes globally due to difficulties in their work environment and interpersonal relationships within the workplace, leading to a decrease in job satisfaction [12].
Job satisfaction is a crucial determinant of mental health, particularly for groups with lower levels of mental health, such as PWDs. High job satisfaction can significantly contribute to the promotion of stress or depressive symptoms [13,14]. However, as previously reported, low job satisfaction can lead to the deterioration of mental health, especially stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms, in PWDs [13,14]. According to a study that analyzed the association between job satisfaction and self-rated health (SRH) or happiness among 1637 employed Korean PWDs, those in the group with lower job satisfaction reported lower levels of SRH and happiness [15]. Additionally, research conducted in Canada and Denmark reported that PWDs experience lower job satisfaction compared to PWODs, primarily due to factors such as discrimination, harassment, and job security concerns [16,17]. This decreased job satisfaction in PWDs was strongly associated with worsening stress or depressive symptoms [17].
While previous studies have investigated the association between job satisfaction and mental health in the general population [18], there is a paucity of research on the relationship between job satisfaction and mental health specifically targeting the PWDs group. Furthermore, in Korea, there is an active research effort to identify the factors influencing job satisfaction among PWDs [19,20]. However, there is a lack of studies that investigate the influence of low job satisfaction on stress or depressive symptom [15,21]. Therefore, considering the lack of research on the association between job satisfaction and mental health among PWDs in South Korea, this study focuses on globally high prevalent stress or depressive symptom [22].
Therefore, in this study, we developed a research framework for understanding the association between job satisfaction and mental health among PWDs by referencing the previous literature on job satisfaction for PWDs and other research frameworks [19,23]. Also, this study utilized cohort data that was followed up for eight years, and the research was conducted using a job satisfaction index that can demonstrate reliability and validity [24]. Accordingly, we established a research hypothesis suggesting a strong association between low job satisfaction scores and worsened stress and depressive symptom. Ultimately, this study utilizes data from the Panel Survey of Employment for the Disabled (PSED), spanning from 2016 to 2023. Based on the research findings, we aim to provide foundational data for policy and institutional measures to prevent the deterioration of mental health among employed PWDs who report low job satisfaction.
MethodsStudy sample and design
In this study, we utilized the 1st to 8th wave (2016–2023) data from the Second PSED [25]. The second wave of the PSED was started in 2016 by selecting new panel survey targets conducted by Korea Employment Agency for the Disabled/Employment Development Institute (KEAD EDI). Among the registered PWD according to the Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act, 4577 people were selected using two-phase sampling from the working-age range of 15–64 as of 15 May 2016, considering the region, age, disability type, disability grade, economic activity status, etc. The PSED is the nationally representative longitudinal survey of individuals with registered disabilities in South Korea, and nationwide data were collected using a computer-assisted personal interviewing program [21].
The first survey was collected from 4577 individuals with disabilities residing in Korea for the second wave of PSED. The second survey, conducted in 2017, followed up with 4214 participants, representing 92.1% of the original panel. The third survey, conducted in 2018, followed up with 4104 participants, representing 89.7% of the original panel. The fourth survey, conducted in 2019, followed with 3995 participants, representing 87.3% of the original panel. The fifth survey, conducted in 2020, followed with 3907 participants, representing 85.4% of the original panel. The sixth survey, conducted in 2021, followed with 3848 participants, representing 84.1% of the original panel. The Seventh survey, conducted in 2022, followed with 3763 participants, representing 82.2% of the original panel. Finally, the eighth survey, conducted in 2023, followed with 3736 participants, representing 81.6% of the original panel.
To investigate the association between job satisfaction and stress or depressive symptoms, among 4577 individuals who were registered in the PSED, we first excluded 2307 participants who responded as a non-economically productive population. Second, we excluded 652 individuals without information on dependent or independent variables. Third, we excluded 4 participants who lacked information on control variables. Finally, we included 1614 participants at baseline. Fig. 1 shows the flow chart for sample selection. Also, Fig. 2 displays the timeline and procedure of this study. The PSED database is released to the public for scientific use, ethical approval was not required for the present study.
Flowchart for sample selection
Study timeline
Independent variablesJob satisfaction
In this study, job satisfaction refers to a state of contentment and enjoyment in one’s current occupation, characterized by a sense of fulfillment, passion, and continued dedication. To measure job satisfaction, we utilized a Job Satisfaction Index [24], comprised of a total of 10 indicators. Each indicator was assigned a range of 1 to 5 points (1 represents very dissatisfied, 2 indicates dissatisfied, 3 stands for neutral, 4 signifies satisfied, and 5 represents very satisfied.), resulting in a score range from 10 to 50. The higher the score, the better the job satisfaction.
The content of the 10 indicators is as follows:
(1) Wage or income (Question 1: How satisfied are you with your job’s wages and income?)
(2) Job security (Question 2: How satisfied are you with your job’s security)
(3) Satisfaction with tasks and responsibilities (Question 3: How satisfied are you with your job’s task and responsibilities?)
(4) Working environment (Question 4: How satisfied are you with your job’s working environment)
(5) Working hours (Question 5: How satisfied are you with your job’s working hours?)
(6) Potential for personal development (Question 6: How satisfied are you with your job’s potential for personal development?)
(7) Communication and interpersonal relationships (Question 7: How satisfied are you with your communication and interpersonal relationships in job?)
(8) Fairness of personnel evaluation (Question 8: How satisfied are you with your job’s fairness of personnel evaluation)
(9) Welfare benefits (Question 9: How satisfied are you with your job’s welfare benefits)
(10) Accessibility and accommodations for individuals with disabilities (Question 10: How satisfied are you with your job’s accessibility and accommodations for PWDs)
Finally, the scores for job satisfaction (range from 0 to 50) were categorized into four groups: <20 for low job satisfaction, 20–29 for medium job satisfaction, 30–39 for high job satisfaction, and >39 for very high job satisfaction [15]. In this study, the reliability analysis for job satisfaction yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.925.
Overall satisfaction with the current job
Overall satisfaction was measured in only one question; In the case of overall satisfaction, it is divided into three groups: unsatisfied (responded “very dissatisfied” or “dissatisfied”), usually (responded “moderate”) and satisfied (responded “satisfied” or “very satisfied”) [15].
Dependent variables
The dependent variables were stress and depressive symptoms of wage working PWDS. Stress and depressive symptoms were measured by single questions in PSED. Stress was assessed by a question, “How much stress do you typically feel in your daily life?”, on a Likert scale. 1 for “Not at all”, 2 for “Not very much”, 3 for “Insignificant”, 4 for “Moderate”, and 5 for “High”. 1~3 was categorized as “No”, and 4~5 was categorized as “Yes”. The depressive symptom was measured by the question, “Over the past year, have you felt sad or hopeless to the extent that it interfered with your daily life for more than two weeks?”, possible responses were “Yes” and “No”. Participants’ responses were used as a depressive symptom variable.
Control variables
This study reviewed previous research that examined the relationship between employment and mental health among PWDs, and accordingly, adopted socioeconomic variables, health status variables, and health risk behavior variables [15,19,21,23,26–28]. Gender was classified into male and female, and age groups were segmented into five categories: 15–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, and ≥60 years. Residential areas were categorized as metropolitan, urban, and rural. Income level was divided into four categories: <100 (Monthly, 10,000), 100–199, 200–299, and >300. The educational level was divided into four groups: elementary school, middle school, high school, and college. Marital status was divided into three categories: Single, Married, and Separated or Divorced. Smoking habits (never smoked, former smoker, and current smoker) and alcohol consumption (never drank, former drinker, and current drinker) were also grouped into three categories, respectively. Stress levels were assessed as hardly felt, moderate, and almost felt a lot. Regarding disability, it was classified into two levels: severe (Level 1 to Level 3) and mild (Level 4 to Level 6), and disability types were further categorized into physical disabilities and other disabilities based on the available sample data.
Analytical approach and statistics
t-test, Analysis of variance (ANOVA), chi-square test, and generalized estimating equation (GEE) model were used to analyze the relationship between job satisfaction and stress or depressive symptoms of PWD. Participants who responded repeatedly eight times were included in the study, and all variables (independent, dependent, and control variables) were measured eight times. For the analysis using the GEE model, the SAS procedure “PROC GENMOD” was used, and the best model was selected by checking the working correlation structure. Using logistic regression via GEE [29], this study calculated all variables’ odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the risk towards job satisfaction or overall job satisfaction. Also, using linear regression via GEE [30], for each variable beta (B) and 95% CI were presented. For all analyses, the criterion for statistical significance was a two-tailed p-value < 0.05. We conducted all analyses using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).
ResultsPrevalence of perceived stress and depressive symptom
Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics at baseline (2016). Of the 1614 research subjects included in our study, the prevalence of perceived stress was 55.9% (902 participants). Of the total sample, 65.4% (17 participants) of those with low job satisfaction (<20) had perceived stress, and 50.4% (139 participants) of those with very high job satisfaction (>39) had perceived stress (p-value: 0.023). Also, 65.9% (85 participants) of those with unsatisfied with overall satisfaction for current job had perceived stress, and 52.1% (404 participants) of those with satisfied had perceived stress (p-value < 0.0001).
General characteristics of subjects included for analysis at baseline
Variables
Total
Stress score
p-value
Effect size
Perceived stress
p-value
Depressive symptom
p-value
Yes
Yes
N
%
M
SD
N
%
N
%
Total
1614
100.0
3.50
(0.83)
902
(55.9)
173
(10.7)
Job satisfaction
0.756
0.01a (0.00–0.02)
0.023
<0.0001
<20
26
1.6
3.69
(1.09)
17
(65.4)
9
(34.6)
20–29
408
25.3
3.62
(0.81)
250
(61.3)
73
(17.9)
30–39
904
56.0
3.48
(0.81)
496
(54.9)
74
(8.2)
>39
276
17.1
3.38
(0.88)
139
(50.4)
17
(6.2)
Overall satisfaction for current job
0.183
0.01a (0.00–0.03)
0.003
<0.0001
Unsatisfied
129
8.0
3.70
(0.89)
85
(65.9)
29
(22.5)
Usually
709
43.9
3.56
(0.78)
413
(58.3)
90
(12.7)
Satisfied
776
48.1
3.41
(0.86)
404
(52.1)
54
(7.0)
Gender
0.157
0.02a (0.02–0.08)
0.620
0.383
Male
1,219
75.5
3.51
(0.82)
677
(55.5)
126
(10.3)
Female
395
24.5
3.49
(0.87)
225
(57.0)
47
(11.9)
Age
0.013
0.00a (0.00–0.00)
0.134
0.668
15–29
240
14.9
3.38
(0.90)
118
(49.2)
26
(10.8)
30–39
505
31.3
3.55
(0.76)
289
(57.2)
46
(9.1)
40–49
519
32.2
3.54
(0.83)
304
(58.6)
60
(11.6)
50–59
242
15.0
3.44
(0.87)
129
(53.3)
27
(11.2)
>59
108
6.7
3.43
(0.92)
62
(57.4)
14
(13.0)
Residential region
0.226
0.00a (0.00–0.00)
0.201
0.000
Metropolitan
338
20.9
3.52
(0.91)
189
(55.9)
48
(14.2)
Urban
415
25.7
3.44
(0.78)
217
(52.3)
23
(5.5)
Rural
861
53.3
3.52
(0.83)
496
(57.6)
102
(11.8)
Income level (Monthly, 10,000KRW)
0.396
0.00a (0.00–0.01)
0.907
0.001
<100
296
18.3
3.47
(0.85)
168
(56.8)
36
(12.2)
100–199
583
36.1
3.50
(0.86)
321
(55.1)
82
(14.1)
200–299
412
25.5
3.49
(0.81)
228
(55.3)
36
(8.7)
>300
323
20.0
3.54
(0.81)
185
(57.3)
19
(5.9)
Education level
0.666
0.00a (0.00–0.00)
0.319
0.140
≤Elementary school
102
6.3
3.60
(0.86)
63
(61.8)
14
(13.7)
Middle school
131
8.1
3.42
(0.89)
68
(51.9)
20
(15.3)
High school
786
48.7
3.52
(0.82)
449
(57.1)
85
(10.8)
≥College
595
36.9
3.48
(0.83)
322
(54.1)
54
(9.1)
Marital status
0.689
0.00a (0.00–0.01)
0.133
0.000
Single
540
33.5
3.46
(0.85)
284
(52.6)
61
(11.3)
Married
893
55.3
3.52
(0.82)
518
(58.0)
77
(8.6)
Divorced, separated
181
11.2
3.51
(0.89)
100
(55.2)
35
(19.3)
Smoking status
0.053
0.01a (0.00–0.02)
0.056
0.036
Current smoker
465
28.8
3.61
(0.83)
280
(60.2)
63
(13.5)
Former smoker
362
22.4
3.52
(0.80)
203
(56.1)
40
(11.0)
Non smoker
787
48.8
3.43
(0.84)
419
(53.2)
70
(8.9)
Alcohol consumption
0.502
0.00a (0.00–0.01)
0.100
0.480
Drinker
941
58.3
3.53
(0.83)
546
(58.0)
101
(10.7)
Former drinker
255
15.8
3.53
(0.80)
139
(54.5)
32
(12.5)
Non drinker
418
25.9
3.42
(0.87)
217
(51.9)
40
(9.6)
Self-rated health
<0.0001
0.46b (0.45–0.46)
<0.0001
<0.0001
Bad
460
28.5
3.77
(0.77)
321
(69.8)
82
(17.8)
Good
1,154
71.5
3.40
(0.84)
581
(50.3)
91
(7.9)
Disability grade
0.443
0.07b (0.03–0.12)
0.625
0.148
Severe grade (Levels 1–3)
412
25.5
3.46
(0.85)
226
(54.9)
52
(12.6)
Light grade (Levels 4–6)
1,202
74.5
3.52
(0.83)
676
(56.2)
121
(10.1)
Disability type
0.302
0.06b (0.02–0.10)
0.974
0.488
Physical disability
1101
68.2
3.52
(0.81)
615
(55.9)
114
(10.4)
Other
513
31.8
3.47
(0.89)
287
(55.9)
59
(11.5)
Note: a Effect Size Using Eta-Square; b Effect Size Using Cohen’s d.
In addition, the mean of continuous values for stress measured by a Likert scale was identified. Low job satisfaction (<20) had a mean of 3.69 (SD: 1.09), while very high job satisfaction (>39) had a mean of 3.70 (SD: 0.89). Also, unsatisfied with overall satisfaction for current job had a mean of 3.70 (SD: 0.89), meanwhile satisfied had a 3.41 (SD: 0.86). Furthermore, effect sizes were estimated using eta square to assess the differences in stress score within job satisfaction and overall satisfaction for current job. The eta squared value for stress score within the job satisfaction was found to be 0.01 (η2: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00–0.02), indicating a moderate effect size [31]. Also, the eta squared value within the overall satisfaction was 0.01 (η2: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00–0.03), indicating a moderate effect size [31].
In terms of depressive symptoms, 34.6% (9 participants) of those with low job satisfaction (<20) had depressive symptoms, and 6.2% (17 participants) of those with very high job satisfaction (>39) had depressive symptoms (p-value < 0.0001). Also, 22.5% (29 participants) of those with unsatisfied with overall satisfaction had depressive symptoms, and 7.0% (54 participants) of those with satisfied had a depressive symptom (p-value < 0.0001).
General characteristics of socioeconomic status (gender, age, residential region, income level, educational level and marital status) and health status and risk behavior (smoking status, alcohol consumption, self-rated health, disability grade and disability type) variables are also listed in Table 1 or Table A1.
Association between job satisfaction or overall job satisfaction and perceived stress
Table 2 shows the results of the panel data analysis using the GEE model, which investigates the association between job satisfaction or overall job satisfaction and perceived stress. First, it was found that for each one-unit increase in the job satisfaction score, the stress scale decreased by 0.004 (B: −0.004, 95% CI: −0.006–−0.002, p-value: <0.0001). Second, the OR of the perceived stress of those with low job satisfaction (<20) was 2.127 times (OR: 2.127, 95% [CI: 1.348–3.356, p-value: 0.001), medium job satisfaction (20–29) was 1.348 times (OR: 1.348, 95% CI: 1.169–1.555, p-value: <0.0001), and high job satisfaction (30–39) was 1.116 times (OR: 1.116, 95% CI: 0.996–1.250, p-value: 0.058) higher compared with those with very high job satisfaction (>39).
Association between job satisfaction and stress score or perceived stress
Variables
Stress score
Perceived stress
B
95% CI
p-value
AOR
95% CI
p-value
AOR
95% CI
p-value
Job satisfaction score
−0.004
(−0.006–−0.002)
<0.0001
Job satisfaction
<20
N/A
2.127
(1.348–3.356)
0.001
N/A
20–29
1.348
(1.169–1.555)
<0.0001
30–39
1.116
(0.996–1.250)
0.058
>39
1.000
Overall satisfaction for current job
Unsatisfied
N/A
N/A
1.593
(1.294–1.960)
<0.0001
Usually
1.034
(0.950–1.125)
0.436
Satisfied
1.000
Gender
Male
Ref
1.000
1.000
Female
0.049
(0.012–0.086)
0.009
1.224
(1.053–1.424)
0.009
1.209
(1.039–1.406)
0.014
Age
15–29
0.060
(−0.002–0.122)
0.057
1.290
(0.999–1.665)
0.051
1.271
(0.984–1.641)
0.066
30–39
0.044
(−0.008–0.095)
0.097
1.206
(0.975–1.492)
0.084
1.193
(0.965–1.477)
0.104
40–49
0.051
(0.004–0.098)
0.032
1.244
(1.024–1.510)
0.028
1.240
(1.021–1.505)
0.030
50–59
0.017
(−0.027–0.061)
0.445
1.080
(0.901–1.295)
0.406
1.077
(0.898–1.292)
0.423
>59
Ref
1.000
1.000
Residential region
Metropolitan
−0.007
(−0.040–0.026)
0.665
0.966
(0.843–1.106)
0.618
0.960
(0.838–1.100)
0.558
Urban
−0.006
(−0.038–0.025)
0.691
0.974
(0.856–1.110)
0.696
0.972
(0.854–1.106)
0.668
Rural
Ref
1.000
1.000
Income level (Monthly, 10,000KRW)
<100
−0.057
(−0.102–−0.013)
0.011
0.795
(0.662–0.954)
0.014
0.822
(0.684–0.986)
0.035
100–199
−0.045
(−0.080–−0.010)
0.011
0.834
(0.723–0.963)
0.013
0.856
(0.741–0.989)
0.035
200–299
−0.041
(−0.071–−0.011)
0.008
0.850
(0.751–0.961)
0.010
0.867
(0.767–0.980)
0.023
>300
Ref
1.000
1.000
Education level
≤Elementary school
−0.016
(−0.077–0.046)
0.618
0.944
(0.730–1.220)
0.658
0.967
(0.748–1.249)
0.797
Middle school
−0.003
(−0.053–0.048)
0.922
1.009
(0.817–1.245)
0.934
1.028
(0.833–1.269)
0.794
High school
−0.033
(−0.063–−0.004)
0.029
0.878
(0.778–0.992)
0.036
0.891
(0.790–1.006)
0.063
≥College
Ref
1.000
1.000
Marital status
Single
−0.040
(−0.089–0.008)
0.104
0.846
(0.691–1.035)
0.103
0.840
(0.687–1.027)
0.088
Married
−0.011
(−0.053–0.030)
0.593
0.953
(0.802–1.132)
0.581
0.947
(0.797–1.125)
0.537
Divorced, separated
Ref
1.000
1.000
Smoking status
Current smoker
0.047
(0.009–0.085)
0.015
1.213
(1.037–1.419)
0.016
1.223
(1.046–1.429)
0.012
Former smoker
0.010
(−0.027–0.048)
0.582
1.041
(0.894–1.212)
0.605
1.047
(0.899–1.219)
0.553
Non smoker
Ref
1.000
1.000
Alcohol consumption
Drinker
0.031
(−0.003–0.066)
0.075
1.140
(0.990–1.313)
0.068
1.142
(0.992–1.315)
0.065
Former drinker
0.040
(0.001–0.078)
0.043
1.179
(1.005–1.382)
0.043
1.176
(1.003–1.379)
0.045
Non drinker
Ref
1.000
1.000
Self-rated health
Bad
0.122
(0.101–0.144)
<0.0001
1.663
(1.516–1.825)
<0.0001
1.671
(1.522–1.834)
<0.0001
Good
Ref
1.000
1.000
Disability grade
Severe grade (Levels 1–3)
0.009
(−0.022–0.041)
0.554
1.038
(0.912–1.181)
0.572
1.035
(0.909–1.178)
0.602
Light grade (Levels 4–6)
Ref
1.000
1.000
Disability type
Physical disability
0.007
(−0.022–0.036)
0.642
1.031
(0.914–1.163)
0.618
1.026
(0.910–1.157)
0.671
Other
Ref
1.000
1.000
Year
2016
0.068
(0.033–0.103)
0.000
1.313
(1.137–1.515)
0.000
1.291
(1.119–1.489)
0.001
2017
0.064
(0.030–0.098)
0.000
1.293
(1.124–1.486)
0.000
1.274
(1.108–1.464)
0.001
2018
0.055
(0.021–0.089)
0.001
1.242
(1.082–1.427)
0.002
1.226
(1.068–1.408)
0.004
2019
0.081
(0.049–0.112)
<0.0001
1.386
(1.217–1.578)
<0.0001
1.376
(1.209–1.567)
<0.0001
2020
0.052
(0.020–0.084)
0.002
1.226
(1.075–1.397)
0.002
1.222
(1.073–1.393)
0.003
2021
0.065
(0.035–0.094)
<0.0001
1.294
(1.145–1.463)
<0.0001
1.291
(1.142–1.459)
<0.0001
2022
0.055
(0.026–0.085)
0.000
1.249
(1.108–1.409)
0.000
1.249
(1.108–1.409)
0.000
2023
Ref
1.000
1.000
In terms of overall satisfaction with current job, the OR of perceived stress for the “Unsatisfied” group was 1.593 times (OR: 1.593, 95% CI: 1.294–1.960, p-value: <0.0001), while the “Usually” group was 1.034 times (OR: 1.034, 95% CI: 0.950–1.125, p-value: 0.436), higher compared with those for the “Satisfied” group.
Association between job satisfaction or overall job satisfaction and depressive symptom
Table 3 shows the results of the panel data analysis using the GEE model, which investigates the association between job satisfaction or overall job satisfaction and depressive symptom. After adjusting for all of these confounders, the OR of the depressive symptom of those with low job satisfaction (<20) was 3.557 times (OR: 3.557, 95% CI: 1.890–6.693, p-value < 0.0001), medium job satisfaction (20–29) was 2.004 times (OR: 2.004, 95% CI: 1.493–2.690, p-value < 0.0001), and high job satisfaction (30–39) was 1.183 times (OR: 1.183, 95% CI: 0.911–1.537, p-value: 0.208) higher compared with those with very high job satisfaction (>39). In terms of overall satisfaction with current job, the OR of depressive symptom for the “Unsatisfied” group was 2.688 times (OR: 2.688, 95% CI: 2.024–3.571, p-value < 0.0001), while the “Usually” group was 1.369 times (OR: 1.369, 95% CI: 1.154–1.624, p-value: 0.000), higher compared with those for the “Satisfied” group.
Association between job satisfaction and depressive symptom
Variables
Depressive symptom
AOR
95% CI
p-value
AOR
95% CI
p-value
Job satisfaction
<20
3.557
(1.890–6.693)
<0.0001
N/A
20–29
2.004
(1.493–2.690)
<0.0001
30–39
1.183
(0.911–1.537)
0.208
>39
1.000
Overall satisfaction for current job
Unsatisfied
N/A
2.688
(2.024–3.571)
<0.0001
Usually
1.369
(1.154–1.624)
0.000
Satisfied
1.000
Gender
Male
1.000
1.000
Female
1.380
(1.036–1.838)
0.028
1.360
(1.021–1.812)
0.036
Age
15–29
1.491
(0.912–2.437)
0.111
1.419
(0.872–2.310)
0.159
30–39
1.683
(1.109–2.554)
0.014
1.612
(1.066–2.438)
0.024
40–49
1.612
(1.104–2.353)
0.013
1.577
(1.086–2.291)
0.017
50–59
1.726
(1.218–2.447)
0.002
1.719
(1.211–2.440)
0.002
>59
1.000
1.000
Residential region
Metropolitan
0.882
(0.699–1.113)
0.290
0.877
(0.696–1.105)
0.266
Urban
0.454
(0.349–0.590)
<0.0001
0.455
(0.350–0.591)
<0.0001
Rural
1.000
1.000
Income level (Monthly, 10,000KRW)
<100
1.209
(0.852–1.716)
0.288
1.239
(0.872–1.760)
0.231
100–199
1.289
(0.975–1.705)
0.075
1.315
(0.992–1.744)
0.057
200–299
1.050
(0.809–1.364)
0.713
1.072
(0.827–1.390)
0.598
>300
1.000
1.000
Education level
≤Elementary school
0.959
(0.610–1.508)
0.856
0.968
(0.618–1.516)
0.887
Middle school
0.983
(0.664–1.455)
0.932
1.008
(0.684–1.484)
0.969
High school
0.984
(0.787–1.231)
0.887
0.981
(0.786–1.224)
0.864
≥College
1.000
1.000
Marital status
Single
0.804
(0.587–1.100)
0.172
0.823
(0.602–1.124)
0.220
Married
0.492
(0.372–0.649)
<0.0001
0.494
(0.375–0.651)
<0.0001
Divorced, separated
1.000
1.000
Smoking status
Current smoker
1.411
(1.060–1.879)
0.018
1.430
(1.075–1.903)
0.014
Former smoker
1.224
(0.914–1.640)
0.175
1.238
(0.924–1.660)
0.153
Non smoker
1.000
1.000
Alcohol consumption
Drinker
1.108
(0.837–1.467)
0.473
1.114
(0.843–1.472)
0.447
Former drinker
1.432
(1.066–1.923)
0.017
1.425
(1.061–1.914)
0.019
Non drinker
1.000
1.000
Self rated health
Bad
2.493
(2.096–2.964)
<0.0001
2.493
(2.098–2.962)
<0.0001
Good
1.000
1.000
Disability grade
Severe grade (Levels 1–3)
1.292
(1.017–1.641)
0.036
1.303
(1.028–1.651)
0.029
Light grade (Levels 4–6)
1.000
1.000
Disability type
Physical disability
0.923
(0.734–1.160)
0.490
0.920
(0.733–1.154)
0.469
Other
1.000
1.000
Year
2016
2.408
(1.782–3.253)
<0.0001
2.381
(1.761–3.219)
<0.0001
2017
1.679
(1.249–2.257)
0.001
1.655
(1.231–2.225)
0.001
2018
1.525
(1.122–2.073)
0.007
1.516
(1.115–2.061)
0.008
2019
1.533
(1.130–2.080)
0.006
1.554
(1.147–2.106)
0.005
2020
1.080
(0.789–1.477)
0.632
1.107
(0.809–1.515)
0.526
2021
1.616
(1.199–2.178)
0.002
1.633
(1.214–2.196)
0.001
2022
1.011
(0.719–1.421)
0.951
1.023
(0.728–1.438)
0.897
2023
1.000
1.000
Discussion
This study aimed to investigate the effects of job satisfaction on the stress or depressive symptom of PWDs working in South Korea. We conducted a longitudinal analysis using data obtained between 2016 and 2023, the second wave of the PSED. The summarized research findings are presented as follows: as overall job satisfaction decreases, there is an increased tendency to experience stress and depressive symptom. In particular, as the job satisfaction scores, assessed through various factors, including wage level, employment stability, and work environment, decrease, there is a higher incidence of stress and depressive symptom among PWDs.
According to a study analyzing the relationship between workplace discrimination and stress or depression among 1566 employed Korean PWDs, it found that the PWDS group experiencing workplace discrimination had a 3.16-times higher OR of experiencing stress and 6.02-times higher OR of experiencing depressive symptom compared to the group without discrimination experiences. Specifically, mental health deteriorated even further as the frequency of workplace discrimination increased [26]. For PWDs, lower educational attainment and economic status compared to PWODs often result in disadvantages in the job market. Moreover, employed PWDs tend to experience significantly lower job satisfaction than PWODs due to inferior treatment, heightened perception of discrimination, and poor working environments [32]. Employed PWDs with low job satisfaction experience a decrease in overall life satisfaction, and this diminished life satisfaction adversely affects both mental health (daily life stress and depressive symptom) and physical health [15,33]. The increase in stress and depression as job satisfaction decreases among can be explained by several mechanisms. According to a previous study conducted in Europe [34], low job satisfaction leads to the development of negative relationships among colleagues, increased time pressure during work hours, and heightened role ambiguity, which in turn cause psychological distress such as everyday stress and depressive symptoms. Another study also reported that low job satisfaction could trigger feelings of social defeat, and for PWDs, this persistent sense of social defeat can eventually lead to stress and chronic depression [35,36].
Recently, various legislations have been enacted in Korea to address issues related to PWDs, aiming to promote their employment rate and job satisfaction, thereby establishing a series of safeguards to eliminate discrimination against PWDs [15]. However, most of these measures exhibit mandatory enforcement within public institutions. Overall, the employment rate of PWDs and the rate of improvement in their working environments remain considerably low within the broader corporate culture of Korea [32]. Notably, Korea’s “Mandatory Employment Allocation Act for Persons with Disabilities” mandates a minimum of 3% employment of PWDs per company. However, as of 2022, the actual employment rate of PWDs in private companies stands at 2%, falling short of the legal requirement. Additionally, it is found that 70% of the private companies surveyed have not implemented the employment of PWDs at all [10]. Moreover, even if PWDs secure employment, they often find themselves in unsatisfactory work environments characterized by inadequate guarantees of a conducive work setting and issues such as simplistic task assignments and exclusion from performance evaluations. This highlights the need for more effective policies and institutional measures to prevent mental health deterioration in PWDs, employed or otherwise [37].
Meanwhile, in Japan, there have been cases in which the government and businesses have worked together to provide PWDS management programs to improve job satisfaction and mental health rather than a top-down policy from the government to businesses [38]. The program has been shown to improve job satisfaction and the physical and mental health of employed PWDs, while reducing the cost of managing PWDs in the workplace. Hence, it can be seen that the program is effective vis-à-vis the management of the mental health of PWDs [38].
Therefore, based on the identified association between job satisfaction and stress or depressive symptoms among PWDs, it is anticipated that providing programs aimed at enhancing job satisfaction and alleviating stress or depressive symptoms within the work environment for employed PWDs could help prevent the deterioration of stress or depressive symptoms caused by low job satisfaction in this population. In addition, given the current lack of research on the association between job satisfaction and mental health among PWDs in South Korea and Asia, the identification of common mental issues, such as stress and depressive symptoms, among employed PWDs is expected to provide foundational data for future research aimed at identifying severe mental disorders. Additionally, considering prior studies that indicate increased job satisfaction among Japanese PWDs (Persons with Disabilities) has led to a reduction in the prevalence of stress and depression amidst the global rise in stress and depression risks for PWDs, the findings of this study could be used as evidence to improve the mental health of PWDs in Asia [39].
The limitations of this study are as follows: first, although GEE models are applied, it remains challenging to establish a complete causal relationship between job satisfaction and stress or depressive symptoms. Second, the factors influencing the increase in stress and depressive symptoms due to decreased job satisfaction in PWDs are complex and multidimensional, making direct assessment difficult [40]. Third, this study had a bias due to the PSED used in the analysis, mixed with the respondents’ opinions. In addition, the use of panel data may introduce bias because the participants are the same across different years. Fourth, this study focused on employed PWDs to ascertain job satisfaction, thus limiting the generalizability of the findings to the entire PWD population. Also, since PSED data is limited to South Korea, generalizing the findings to other ethnicities and geographic locations is challenging. Fifth, although the research model was developed through a review of various preceding studies, there may be potential confounding variables present. Finally, Due to limitations in the PSED variables, stress, and depressive symptoms were measured using a single scale. Future research should utilize scales that can demonstrate reliability and validity.
Conclusion
This study used PSED from 2016 to 2023 to examine the association between job satisfaction and stress or depressive symptoms in employed PWDs. The findings showed that PWDs with lower job satisfaction had a higher prevalence of stress and depressive symptoms. Therefore, we emphasize the need for policy and institutional measures to promote mental health. In particular, we expect that if a series of programs for employed PWDs are provided by the government and businesses based on the policy cases that have been implemented to promote job satisfaction and stress or depressive symptoms for PWDs, the mental health deterioration of vulnerable groups can be prevented. Meanwhile, in the context of limited research on the relationship between job satisfaction and stress or depressive symptoms among employed PWDs in Korea, this study’s findings may serve as foundational research to support the improvement of mental health in this population. In addition, it is anticipated that these findings can be used as evidence to improve the work environment for PWDs within the context of Korean corporate culture.
None.
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this study.
Author Contributions
Jeong Min Yang designed this study, performed statistical analysis, drafted and completed the manuscript. Ji Sung Hong revised the manuscript. Jae Hyun Kim designed and directed this study. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Availability of Data and Materials
Publicly accessible data were analyzed in this study. This data can be found here: https://www.kead.or.kr/en/ (accessed on 23 September 2024).
Ethics Approval
The PSED database is released to the public for scientific use, ethical approval was not required for the present study.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report regarding the present study.
ReferencesWorld Health Organization. Global report on health equity for persons with disabilities. 2022. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240063600. [Accessed 2024].AndrewsEE. Disability models. Pract Psychol Med Rehabil. 2017;83:77–83. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-34034-0_9.KimJ, KimJ, KimY, HanA, NguyenMC. The contribution of physical and social activity participation to social support and happiness among people with physical disabilities. Disabil Health J. 2021;14(1):100974; 32811784KimKM, FoxMH. A comparative examination of disability anti-discrimination legislation in the United States and Korea. Disabil Soc. 2011;26(3):269–83. doi:10.1080/09687599.2011.560371.KimH-J, HongS, KimM. Living arrangement, social connectedness, and life satisfaction among Korean older adults with physical disabilities: the results from the national survey on persons with disabilities. J Dev Phys Disabil. 2015;27:307–21. doi:10.1007/s10882-014-9418-9.VashishthA, JhambD. Why should employers hire people with disabilities?—a review of benefits for the hospitality industry. Revista Turismo Desenvolvimento,2021;2021(35):9–21.OhUC, KimSJ, KimHK, LeeWJ, OhDE. Multiple disparities and social policies for persons with disabilities in Korea. Republic of Korea: Korea Institute Health and Social Affairs; 2020.BaldridgeDC, BeattyJE, KonradAM, MooreME. People with disabilities. In: The Oxford handbook of diversity in organizations. UK: Oxford University Press; 2016. p. 469–98.KrisiM, EckhausE, NagarR. Developing a multilevel scale to assess retention of workers with disabilities. J Occup Rehabil. 2022;32(1):138–46. doi:10.1007/s10926-021-09984-5; 34106379Korea Employment Agency for Persons with Disabilities. Survey on economic activities of persons with disabilities. 2022. Available from: https://kossda.snu.ac.kr/handle/20.500.12236/25981. [Accessed 2024].International Labour Office. Disability discrimination at work. 2007. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/publications/disability-discrimination-work. [Accessed 2024].KeatingBW, KeramatSA, WallerI, HashmiR. Job satisfaction dynamics: how do they impact employment mode choice for people with a disability?Heliyon. 2022;8(10):e11076; 36303915HoneyA, EmersonE, LlewellynG. The mental health of young people with disabilities: impact of social conditions. Soc Psych Psych Epid. 2011;46:1–10. doi:10.1007/s00127-009-0161-y; 19894012StuartH. Mental illness and employment discrimination. Curr Opin Psychiatr. 2006;19(5):522–6. doi:10.1097/01.yco.0000238482.27270.5d; 16874128LeeYL, YangJM, KimJ-H. Influence of job satisfaction on SRH and happiness among Korean disabled workers: findings from the panel survey of employment for the disabled 2016–2018. Front Public Health. 2023;11:9. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1122648; 37786784UppalS. Disability, workplace characteristics and job satisfaction. Int J Manpower. 2005;26(4):336–49.RuguliesR, AustB, BurrH, BültmannU. Job insecurity, chances on the labour market and decline in self-rated health in a representative sample of the Danish workforce. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2008;62(3):245–50. doi:10.1136/jech.2006.059113; 18272740FlanaganNA, FlanaganTJ. An analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction and job stress in correctional nurses. Res Nurs Health. 2002;25(4):282–94. doi:10.1002/nur.10042; 12124722KangCM, LeeKC. Investigating the factors affecting disabled worker’s job satisfaction: emphasis on hygiene factors and regional factors. J Digital Converg. 2020;18(11):1–11. doi:10.14400/JDC.2020.18.11.001.KimK. A study on factors influencing job satisfaction of disabled employees. Disabil Employ. 2011;21(2):189–216. doi:10.15707/disem.2011.21.2.008.ParkY, SeoDG, ParkJ, BettiniE, SmithJ. Predictors of job satisfaction among individuals with disabilities: an analysis of South Korea’s National survey of employment for the disabled. Res Dev Disabil. 2016;53:198–212. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.02.009; 26921527KempB. Depression as a secondary condition in people with disabilities. In: Workshop on disability in America: a new look. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press; 2006. doi:10.17226/11579.PetrovskiP, GleesonG. The relationship between job satisfaction and psychological health in people with an intellectual disability in competitive employment. J Intell Dev Disabil. 1997;22(3):199–211. doi:10.1080/13668259700033411.LeeHH. The longitudinal effect between disability acceptance and job satisfaction of wage working disabled persons: adapting the autoregressive cross-lagged model and multigroup analysis. J Korea Soc Comput Inform. 2022;27(9):177–90. doi:10.9708/jksci.2022.27.09.177.Korea Employment Agency for Persons with Disabilities. Panel Survey of Employment for the Disabled (PESD). 2016. Available from: https://edi.kead.or.kr/ENG_Contents.do?cmd=_004A&mid=108. [Accessed 2024].LeeHJ, JeongW, ChonD, KimJ-H, MoonJY. The association between perceived discrimination and mental health of wage workers with disabilities: findings from the panel survey of employment for the disabled 2016–2018. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(14):8541. doi:10.3390/ijerph19148541; 35886393MilnerA, LaMontagneA, AitkenZ, BentleyR, KavanaghAM. Employment status and mental health among persons with and without a disability: evidence from an Australian cohort study. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2014;68(11):1064–71. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-204147; 25053615SundarV, BruckerDL. Personal and organizational determinants of job satisfaction for workers with disabilities. Rehabil Couns Bull. 2019;62(3):170–9. doi:10.1177/0034355218770272.LipsitzSR, FitzmauriceGM, OravEJ, LairdNM. Performance of generalized estimating equations in practical situations. Biometrics. 1994;270–8. doi:10.2307/2533218.BurtonP, GurrinL, SlyP. Extending the simple linear regression model to account for correlated responses: an introduction to generalized estimating equations and multi-level mixed modelling. Stat Med. 1998;17(11):1261–91. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980615)17:11<1261::AID-SIM846>3.0.CO;2-Z.BrownJD. Effect size and eta squared. In: Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter; 2008. vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 38–43.KangD. Why would companies not employ people with disabilities in Korea?Asia Pacific J Soc Work Dev. 2013;23(3):222–9. doi:10.1080/02185385.2013.818202.LeeSK. Relation analysis among the discriminatory experience, job satisfaction and life satisfaction of disabled workers: focusing on gender and employment status differences. Women’s Stud. 2014;87(2):349–81. doi:10.33949/tws.2014.87.2.010.YaşlıoğluM, KaragülleAÖ, BaranM. An empirical research on the relationship between job insecurity, job related stress and job satisfaction in logistics industry. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci. 2013;99:332–8. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.501.BriggsAC. Conflict management strategies and employee job satisfaction: an empirical study of Federal and State Ministries in Rivers State. Int J Res Edu Sustainable Dev. 2022;2(2):71–88.KoskinenM-K, van MourikY, SmitAB, RigaD, SpijkerS. From stress to depression: development of extracellular matrix-dependent cognitive impairment following social stress. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):17308. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-73173-2; 33057053KhanN, Korac-KakabadseN, SkouloudisA, DimopoulosA. Diversity in the workplace: an overview of disability employment disclosures among UK firms. Corp Soc Responsib Environ Manage. 2019;26(1):170–85. doi:10.1002/csr.1669.JonesDL, TanigawaT, WeissSM. Stress management and workplace disability in the US, Europe and Japan. J Occup Health. 2003;45(1):1–7. doi:10.1539/joh.45.1; 14605422HoriD, OiY, OhtakiY, AndreaCS, TakahashiT, ShirakiN, et al. Association between flourishing mental health and occupational stress among workers of Tsukuba Science City, Japan: a cross-sectional study. Environ Health Prev Med. 2019;24:1–11.AziriB. Job satisfaction: a literature review. Manage Res Pract. 2011;3(4):77–86.Appendix A
General characteristics of job satisfaction and overall satisfaction for current job
Variables
Total
Job satisfaction
p-value
Overall satisfaction for current Job
p-value
<20
20–29
30–39
>39
Unsatisfied
Usually
Satisfied
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Total
1614
100.0
26
1.6
408
25.3
904
56.0
276
17.1
129
8.0
709
43.9
776
48.1
Perceived stress
0.023
0.003
No
712
44.1
9
1.3
158
22.2
408
57.3
137
19.2
44
6.2
296
41.6
372
52.2
Yes
902
55.9
17
1.9
250
27.7
496
55.0
139
15.4
85
9.4
413
45.8
404
44.8
Depressive symptoms
<0.0001
<0.0001
No
1,441
89.3
17
1.2
335
23.2
830
57.6
259
18.0
100
6.9
619
43.0
722
50.1
Yes
173
10.7
9
5.2
73
42.2
74
42.8
17
9.8
29
16.8
90
52.0
54
31.2
Gender
0.055
0.366
Male
1,219
75.5
20
1.6
328
26.9
663
54.4
208
17.1
104
8.5
534
43.8
581
47.7
Female
395
24.5
6
1.5
80
20.3
241
61.0
68
17.2
25
6.3
175
44.3
195
49.4
Age
<0.0001
<0.0001
15–29
240
14.9
3
1.3
45
18.8
147
61.3
45
18.8
18
7.5
84
35.0
138
57.5
30–39
505
31.3
6
1.2
97
19.2
298
59.0
104
20.6
32
6.3
216
42.8
257
50.9
40–49
519
32.2
7
1.3
143
27.6
280
53.9
89
17.1
38
7.3
233
44.9
248
47.8
50–59
242
15.0
7
2.9
78
32.2
124
51.2
33
13.6
23
9.5
125
51.7
94
38.8
>59
108
6.7
3
2.8
45
41.7
55
50.9
5
4.6
18
16.7
51
47.2
39
36.1
Residential region
0.046
0.300
Metropolitan
338
20.9
3
0.9
82
24.3
184
54.4
69
20.4
27
8.0
134
39.6
177
52.4
Urban
415
25.7
2
0.5
113
27.2
239
57.6
61
14.7
35
8.4
177
42.7
203
48.9
Rural
861
53.3
21
2.4
213
24.7
481
55.9
146
17.0
67
7.8
398
46.2
396
46.0
Income level (Monthly, 10,000KRW)
<0.0001
<0.0001
<100
296
18.3
7
2.4
116
39.2
152
51.4
21
7.1
43
14.5
159
53.7
94
31.8
100–199
583
36.1
15
2.6
181
31.0
316
54.2
71
12.2
53
9.1
290
49.7
240
41.2
200–299
412
25.5
3
0.7
82
19.9
251
60.9
76
18.4
24
5.8
169
41.0
219
53.2
>300
323
20.0
1
0.3
29
9.0
185
57.3
108
33.4
9
2.8
91
28.2
223
69.0
Education level
<0.0001
<0.0001
≤Elementary school
102
6.3
6
5.9
45
44.1
45
44.1
6
5.9
16
15.7
55
53.9
31
30.4
Middle school
131
8.1
2
1.5
52
39.7
71
54.2
6
4.6
12
9.2
78
59.5
41
31.3
High school
786
48.7
14
1.8
221
28.1
459
58.4
92
11.7
72
9.2
385
49.0
329
41.9
≥College
595
36.9
4
0.7
90
15.1
329
55.3
172
28.9
29
4.9
191
32.1
375
63.0
Marital status
0.007
0.002
Single
540
33.5
6
1.1
126
23.3
302
55.9
106
19.6
40
7.4
217
40.2
283
52.4
Married
893
55.3
17
1.9
221
24.7
500
56.0
155
17.4
70
7.8
393
44.0
430
48.2
Divorced, separated
181
11.2
3
1.7
61
33.7
102
56.4
15
8.3
19
10.5
99
54.7
63
34.8
Smoking status
<0.0001
0.000
Current smoker
465
28.8
14
3.0
145
31.2
240
51.6
66
14.2
56
12.0
214
46.0
195
41.9
Former smoker
362
22.4
3
0.8
104
28.7
197
54.4
58
16.0
26
7.2
166
45.9
170
47.0
Non smoker
787
48.8
9
1.1
159
20.2
467
59.3
152
19.3
47
6.0
329
41.8
411
52.2
Alcohol consumption
0.452
0.780
Drinker
941
58.3
17
1.8
238
25.3
533
56.6
153
16.3
74
7.9
420
44.6
447
47.5
Former drinker
255
15.8
5
2.0
72
28.2
138
54.1
40
15.7
24
9.4
112
43.9
119
46.7
Non drinker
418
25.9
4
1.0
98
23.4
233
55.7
83
19.9
31
7.4
177
42.3
210
50.2
Self-rated health
<0.0001
<0.0001
Bad
460
28.5
13
2.8
178
38.7
225
48.9
44
9.6
70
15.2
232
50.4
158
34.3
Good
1,154
71.5
13
1.1
230
19.9
679
58.8
232
20.1
59
5.1
477
41.3
618
53.6
Disability grade
0.354
0.226
Severe grade (Levels 1–3)
412
25.5
6
1.5
107
26.0
218
52.9
81
19.7
35
8.5
166
40.3
211
51.2
Light grade (Levels 4–6)
1,202
74.5
20
1.7
301
25.0
686
57.1
195
16.2
94
7.8
543
45.2
565
47.0
Disability type
0.030
0.126
Physical disability
1,101
68.2
17
1.5
262
23.8
615
55.9
207
18.8
89
8.1
465
42.2
547
49.7
Other
513
31.8
9
1.8
146
28.5
289
56.3
69
13.5
40
7.8
244
47.6
229
44.6
Note: aEffect Size Using Eta-Square; bEffect Size Using Cohen’s d.