The Relationship between Psychological Distress and Psychological Wellbeing

Transcription

1 The Relationship between Psychological Distress and Psychological Wellbeing - Kessler 10 and Various Wellbeing Scales - The Assessment of the Determinants and Epidemiology of Psychological Distress (ADEPD) Study The University of Adelaide Discipline of Psychiatry September 2009

2 2009 This work is copyright. It may be reproduced and the Discipline of Psychiatry at The University of Adelaide welcomes requests for permission to reproduce in the whole or in part for, study or training purposes subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source and no commercial use or sale. National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: ISBN: Subjects: The relationship between psychological distress and psychological well-being - (K10 and various well-being scales) [electronic resource] : The assessment of the determinants and epidemiology of psychological distress (ADEPD) study. Report 2 / H. Winefield... [et al.] (pdf) Stress (Psychology) Distress (Psychology) Well-being--Psychological aspects. Epidemiology. Other Authors/Contributors: Winefield, Helen R. University of Adelaide. Dewey Number: National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: ISBN: Subjects: The relationship between psychological distress and psychological well-being - (K10 and various well-being scales) : the assessment of the determinants and epidemiology of psychological distress (ADEPD) study. Report 2 / H. Winefield.[et al.] (pbk) Stress (Psychology) Distress (Psychology) Well-being--Psychological aspects. Epidemiology. Other Authors/Contributors: Winefield, Helen R. University of Adelaide. Dewey Number: Suggested citation: Winefield H, Taylor A, Gill T, Pilkington R, Koster C. The relationship between psychological distress and psychological wellbeing The Assessment of the Determinants and Epidemiology of Psychological Distress (ADEPD) Study. Discipline of Psychiatry, University of Adelaide

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Background Aim Methodology Data collection Data processing Instruments used Results Overall demographic characteristics Kessler Ryff s positive relations scale Ryff s environmental mastery scale Diener s Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) Overall wellbeing Summary of demographic characteristics related to scales Internal reliability Correlations between scales Categorical comparisons between scales Summary References Appendix

4 1 Background 1.1 Aim The (ADEPD) study seeks to understand how best to impact on the prevalence of Psychological Distress (PD) or poor mental health outcomes in the South Australian (SA) context. To reduce the prevalence and impact of PD in the SA community, SA Health knows that effective policy and program interventions are essential. The ADEPD Study has been funded through the Strategic Health Research Program , SA Health. In most recent times a new interest in the positive psychology is apparent 1,2 which is centred around the concept of psychological wellbeing. Not many studies exist, which explore the relationship between both. The aim of this report is to examine measures of psychological wellbeing as determined by specific scales and compare these results with the Kessler 10 (K10) to determine the relationship between psychological wellbeing and PD. 2 Methodology 2.1 Data collection Questions on wellbeing and PD were included in the Health Monitor survey conducted between April and June The Health Monitor is a telephone monitoring system designed to provide high quality health data on large samples of the South Australian population. It is particularly applicable for surveys where planning information is required about health problems, use of health services, consumer perspective or health outcomes. The advantage of obtaining large samples lies in the opportunity to describe health problems and compare the health status and activities of different population or regional groups, either cross-sectionally or over time. Large samples are important for the planning and development of health services on specific issues and the Health Monitor provides the opportunity to obtain population data regarding these issues. The Health Monitor is managed within the Population Research and Outcome Studies (PROS) Unit in the SA Health. 4

5 2.1.1 Sample selection All households in South Australia with a telephone connected and the telephone number listed in the Electronic White Pages (EWP) were eligible for selection in the sample. Telephone numbers were selected randomly from the metropolitan and country areas. Only one interview was conducted per household. Where more than one person aged 18 or over resided in the household, the respondent was the person who was last to have their birthday. There were no replacements for non-contactable persons Introductory letter A letter introducing the study was sent to the household of each selected telephone number. The letter informed people of the purpose of the survey and indicated that they could expect a telephone call within the time frame of the survey Ethics approval This survey obtained ethics approval from the Heath SA Human Research Ethics Committee and the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Committee Questions Questions included in the survey were those related to psychological wellbeing and PD. These are described in more detail below (see Section 2.3). In addition demographic questions were also asked. The full list of questions asked in this survey is contained in Appendix Pilot testing Before the conduct of the main survey, the questionnaire was pilot tested (n=50). The original questionnaire, where appropriate, was amended slightly on the basis of the information obtained Data collection Data were collected by a contracted agency and interviews were conducted in English, Italian, Greek and Vietnamese. Interviewing was undertaken from 23 rd April 2009 to 9 th June Telephone calls were made between 10.00am and 8.30pm, seven days a week. 5

6 2.1.7 CATI The CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interview) system was used to conduct the interviews. This system allows immediate entry of data from the interviewer s questionnaire screen to the computer database. The main advantages of this system are the precise ordering and timing of call-backs and correct sequencing of questions as specific answers are given. The CATI system enforces a range of checks on each response with most questions having a set of pre-determined response categories. In addition, CATI automatically rotates response categories, when required, to minimise bias. When open-ended responses are required these are transcribed exactly by the interviewer Call backs At least ten call-backs were made to the telephone number selected at random from the Electronic White Pages (EWP) to interview household members. Different times of the day or evening were scheduled for each call back. If a person could not be interviewed immediately they were re-scheduled for interview at a time suitable to them Validation Of each interviewer s work, 10% was selected at random for validation by the supervisor. The contracted agency is a member of Interviewer Quality Control Australia (IQCA). 6

7 Response rates A sample of 4500 was drawn and the overall participation rate was 63.4%. Sample loss occurred due to fax/ modem connections (1.1%, n=48), Telstra message or number not connected (22.1%, n=994), non residential numbers (2.5%, n=113) and ineligible (0.4%, n=18). From the eligible sample of 3327, a response rate of 58.1% was calculated as shown in Table 1. Table 1: Summary of response rate Response rate n % Eligible Sample 3327 Refusals Non-contact 10 attempts Foreign language Deceased Incapacitated Terminated Respondent unavailable Completed interviews Participation rate 63.4 Response rate = completed interviews / initial eligible sample Participation rate = completed interviews / (initial eligible sample - non-contact after ten attempts) 2.2 Data processing Analysis Raw data from the CATI system were analysed using SPSS Version The conventional five per cent level of statistical significance was used to determine statistically significant differences where appropriate Weighting Weighting was used to correct for disproportionality of the sample with respect to the population of interest 3. The data were weighted by age, sex and postcode to reflect the structure of the population in South Australia over the age of 18 years and probability of selection in the household. Probability of selection in the household was calculated on the number of adults in the household and the number of telephone number listings for that household in the White Pages. 7

8 2.2.3 Data interpretation All analyses presented in this report are weighted unless otherwise stated. The weighting of the data results in rounding effects for the numbers. In all instances the percentages should be the point of reference rather than the actual numbers of respondents. For example cell sizes presented as 1, 2 and 4 could in fact be 1.3, 2.4 and 4.4, which results in a slight variation from the totals presented (7 vs. 8). The percentages presented in this report have been processed on the figures pre rounding. 2.3 Instruments used Kessler 10 PD is measured using the Kessler 10 (K10) 4. This is a ten item questionnaire on non-specific PD which has been widely used for several years as the key measure of population PD in the South Australian Monitoring and Surveillance Survey used by Health SA. These questions are only asked of those aged 16 years or older at the time of the survey. The items are based on the level of anxiety and depressive symptoms experienced in the most recent four-week period. Subjects report the frequency of each experience on a five point scale ranging from all of the time to none of the time. The scoring system used is based on the method developed by the Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety and Depression (CRUFAD), School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales. In this method, five points are given to any answer of all of the time down to one point in a linear formulation for none of the time. This results in individual K10 scores being restricted to the range of 10 to 50 inclusive. Cut-off scores for low, moderate, high and very high PD are based on the Collaborative Health and Wellbeing Survey, , where respondents with a score of were classified as having PD (Table 2). Table 2: Definition of psychological distress based on Kessler 10 scores K10 score Level of psychological distress Low Moderate No psychological distress High Very high Psychological distress 8

9 2.3.2 Ryff s Psychological wellbeing scales Psychological wellbeing is measured using the Ryff scales 6. Specifically, it was decided to include only two of the six sub-scales in this questionnaire: environmental mastery (5 items) and positive relations (6 items). These subscales were chosen to reflect the sense of control and of supportive social relationships which have been clearly identified as integral aspects of psychological wellbeing. Response categories were on a five point scale ranging from Strongly agree to Strongly disagree. For the purpose of this paper the Don t know and Refused responses were treated as missing data. Respondents report the extent to which they agree with the statement in relation to the time the questions are being asked. Both dimensions of the psychological wellbeing scales were measured with positively and negatively worded items. All positively worded items were reverse coded, so that the higher scores corresponded with higher levels of psychological wellbeing Diener s Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) Life satisfaction is measured using the Diener Satisfaction with Life Scale comprising of five items 7. These require the respondent to indicate to what extent they agree or disagree with the statement on a seven point Likert type scale with higher scores corresponding to higher life satisfaction. The scale has been accepted in the scientific literature as the best brief screening measure for a positive psychological state 8,9,10. Below is an explanation of the life satisfaction score derived from the scale (Table 3). Table 3: Definition of life satisfaction based on Diener s scores Score Level of Satisfaction Explanation 5-9 Extremely dissatisfied Extremely unhappy due to multiple areas of life Dissatisfied Substantially dissatisfied due to a number of life domains not going well Slightly below average Small but significant problems in several areas Average life satisfaction Mostly satisfied with most areas High satisfaction Lives are not perfect but mostly going good Very highly satisfied Love their lives and things as good as they get 9

10 3 Results 3.1 Overall demographic characteristics This section presents all of the relevant demographic characteristics of the survey respondents. These demographic and socioeconomic factors include: Sex; Age; Number of people aged 18 years and over in the household; Number of people aged under 18 years in the household; Area of residence; Country of birth; Language spoken at home; Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status; Marital status; Employment status; Educational attainment; Household income; Dwelling status; Pension status. Overall, n=1933 respondents aged 18 years and over participated in the study. The demographic profile of the survey participants in terms of sex, age and household is shown in Table 4. Table 4: Demographic characteristics sex, age group, household size Variable Response Categories n % Sex Male Female Age group 18 to 24 years to 34 years to 44 years to 54 years to 64 years to 74 years years and over Household size (adults) 1 adult adults or more adults Total Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 2.3.3) 10

11 Table 5 describes the ethnic composition, number of children in the household and marital status of the respondents. The majority of respondents were born in Australia (77.5%). Of the 77.5% of respondents who reported that they were born in Australia, 1.0% were of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. Table 5: Demographic characteristics area of residence, number of children in household, country of birth, language spoken at home, marital status and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status Variable Response Categories n % Area of residence Metropolitan Country Number of children in household (under 18 years) None child children or more children Not stated 1 - Country of birth Australia England/ Ireland Other Main language spoken at home English Other Marital status Married/ de facto Separated/ divorced Widowed Never married Refused 1 - Total Aboriginal or Torres Aboriginal and/ or Torres Strait Islander Strait Islander No Refused Total Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 1.3.3) 11

12 Respondents were asked whether their dwelling was rented or owned. The responses are summarised in Table 6, as are those relating to the highest education level attained, work status and gross annual household income. Table 6: Demographic characteristics highest educational qualification obtained, work status, gross annual household income and dwelling status Variable Response Categories n % Highest educational qualification obtained Secondary Trade/ Certificate/ Diploma Bachelor degree or higher Work status Full time employed Part time/ casual employment Unemployed Home duties Retired Student Unable to work because of disability/ Workcover/ invalid Other Refused Gross annual Up to $20, household income $20,000 to $40, $40,001 to $60, $60,001 to $80, Over $80, Not stated Ownership of dwelling Owned or being purchased by the occupant Rented from Housing Trust Rented privately Retirement village Other Refused Total Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 2.3.3) 12

13 Those who did not work full time or part time (n=732) were then asked if they received any form of pension or benefit. Overall, 37.9% of respondents received some form of pension or benefit. The responses are summarised in Table 7 and Table 8. Table 7: Proportion of respondents receiving a pension or benefit Pension or benefit n % Yes No Total Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 2.3.3) Table 8: Type of benefit received by people not working full or part time* Pension or benefit n % Aged pension Invalid/ Disability pension Service or defence/ War widow s/ Repatriation Supporting parents AUSTUDY/ Youth allowance Unemployment Sickness benefit Other None of named pensions Refused * Multiple responses were possible 13

14 3.2 Kessler 10 Overall n=1932 respondents provided responses to the K10, with the overall prevalence of PD 11.1% (95% CI ). The categories of PD are shown in Table 9. Table 9: Categories of Psychological Distress n % (95% CI) Low ( ) Moderate ( ) High ( ) Very high ( ) No psychological distress ( ) Psychological distress ( ) Total The following section presents the mean K10 score for each demographic characteristic. T- tests were used to compare two groups and one-way ANOVA was used to test differences between more than two groups with all post hoc comparisons conducted using the Scheffe test. The overall mean K10 score was 15.4 (SD 5.6, range 10 50). The results are presented in Table Gender K10 scores differed significantly between sex, t = -4.28, p < 0.001, with females demonstrating a higher mean score on the K10 than males Age group Overall there were no differences observed between age groups (F = 1.53, p = 0.17) Household size (adults) Overall there was a significant difference in the mean score (F = 5.51, p = 0.004). Post hoc comparisons found that respondents who were the only adult in the household had a higher mean score than respondents living with at least one other adult. 14

15 3.2.4 Area of residence No significant differences in mean K10 scores were found by area of residence (t = -1.73, p = 0.08) Number of children in the household No significant differences in mean K10 scores were found between those with and without children in the household (t = -0.37, p = 0.71) Country of birth No significant differences in mean K10 scores were found for country of birth (F = 0.15, p = 0.86) Language spoken at home There was a significant difference in the mean K10 score depending on the language spoken at home. Those who spoke a language other than English at home had a significantly higher K10 score compared to those who spoke English (t = -2.37, p = 0.02) Marital status Significant differences in the mean scores were seen according to marital status, F = 5.94, p < Post hoc comparisons found that married/ de facto respondents and those who had never married demonstrated lower mean scores on the K10 than those who were separated/ divorced Education Level of education had a significant effect on K10 scores, F = 8.01, p < Following post hoc comparisons, it was apparent that respondents reporting their education level as secondary education demonstrated a significantly higher mean score on the K10 compared to each of the other categories. 15

16 Work status Work status demonstrated a significant effect on respondent s mean K10 score, F = 20.63, p < Respondent s who were unable to work scored significantly higher on the K10 then every other work status. Those who reported their work status as home duties demonstrated a significantly higher mean score on the K10 compared to respondent s who were employed full time Income Overall there was a significant difference in the mean scores on the K10 depending on income bracket, F = 10.98, p < Post hoc comparisons demonstrated that respondents reporting an income of up to $60,000 had a significantly higher mean score on the K10 than respondents earning $80,000 and over Dwelling Overall there was a significant difference in the mean scores on the K10 depending on dwelling status, F = 7.40, p < Post hoc comparisons demonstrated that respondents who rented from the Housing Trust or rented privately both had a significantly higher score on the K10 than respondents who owned or were purchasing their property Aboriginal and/ or Torres Strait Islander Overall Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders did not have a significantly higher K10 score than those who were not (t = -1.27, p = 0.23) Pension status Overall those who received a pension had a significantly higher K10 score than those who did not (t = -5.05, p < 0.001). 16

17 Table 10: Mean K10 scores by demographic characteristics Sex n Mean SD 95% CI Male * Female * Age group 18 to 24 years to 34 years to 44 years to 54 years to 64 years to 74 years years and over Number of adults in household 1 adult * 2 adults * 3 or more adults Area of residence Metropolitan Country Children in household No children Children Country of birth Australia England/ Ireland Other Language spoken at home English * Other * Marital status^ Married/ de facto * Separated/ divorced * Widowed Never married * Education^ Secondary * Trade/ Certificate * Bachelor degree or higher * Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 2.3.3) * Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level ^ Don t know/ refused category not included 17

18 Table 10: Mean K10 scores by demographic characteristics (cont) Work status n Mean SD 95% CI Full time employed * Part time/ casual employment * Unemployed * Home duties * Retired * Student * Unable to work because of disability/ Workcover/ invalid * Other * Refused * Income Up to $20, * $20,001 to $40, * $40,001 to $60, * $60,001 to $80, * Over $80, * Not stated Dwelling Owned or being purchased Rent from Housing Trust Rented privately Retirement village Other Refused Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander^ No * Yes * Pension status No * Yes * Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 2.3.3) * Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level ^ Don t know/ refused category not included 18

19 3.3 Ryff s positive relations scale Overall n=1882 respondents provided responses to the Ryff s positive relations scale. The following section presents the mean score for each demographic characteristic. T-tests were used to compare two groups and one-way ANOVA was used to test differences between more than two groups with all post hoc comparisons conducted using the Scheffe test. The overall mean Ryff s positive relations score was 24.0 (SD 3.4, range 10 30). The results are presented in Table Gender Positive relations scores differed significantly between sex, t = -3.14, p = 0.002, with females demonstrating a higher mean score than males Age group Overall there was a significant difference in the mean score between age groups (F = 3.04, p = 0.006). Respondents aged 18 to 25 years had a significantly higher mean score compared to those aged 75 years and over Household size (adults) Overall there was a significant difference in the mean score (F = 20.73, p < 0.001). Post hoc comparisons found that one adult in the household had a lower mean score than two adults or three adults in the household Area of residence Respondents demonstrated significantly different mean positive relation scores depending on area of residence (t = 2.48, p = 0.01) with those in the country having a lower score than those living in metropolitan Adelaide Number of children in the household Respondents with children in the household had a significantly higher mean positive relations score than those without children in the household (t = -2.54, p = 0.01). 19

20 3.3.6 Country of birth No significant differences in mean positive relations scores were found for country of birth (F = 0.30, p = 0.74) Language spoken at home There was a significant difference in the mean positive relations with those who spoke a language other than English at home having a significantly lower score compared to those who spoke English (t = 5.61, p < 0.001) Marital status Significant differences in the mean scores were seen according to marital status, F = 12.42, p < Post hoc comparisons found that separated/ divorced respondents and widowed respondents were significantly more likely to score lower on the positive relations scale compared to respondents who were married/ defacto. Those who were separated or divorced were also more likely to have a significantly lower score than respondents who were never married Education Level of education had a significant effect on positive relations scores, F = 21.84, p < Respondents with a bachelor degree or higher were significantly more likely to score higher on the positive relations scale compared to the other categories and respondents with a trade/ certificate level had a significantly higher score than those with a secondary education Work status Overall, work status demonstrated a significant effect on respondents mean positive relation score, F = 11.50, p < Respondents who were retired were significantly more likely to have a lower positive relations score then those who were employed full time. Additionally, respondents who were unable to work due to disability/ Workcover/ incapacity had a significantly lower positive relations score than respondents who were employed full time, part time, undertook home duties, were a student or retired. 20

21 Income Overall there was a significant difference in the mean positive relations scores depending on income bracket, F = 18.50, p < Post hoc comparisons demonstrated that respondents reporting an income of up to $20,000 had a significantly lower mean score than respondents earning $60,000 and over (or did not state their income). Those earning $20,000 to $80,000 or who did not state their income scored significantly lower then those earning $80,000 and above Dwelling Overall there was a significant difference in the mean positive relations score depending on dwelling status, F = 6.68, p < Post hoc comparisons demonstrated that respondents who rented from the Housing Trust had a significantly lower score than respondents who owned or were purchasing their property Aboriginal and/ or Torres Strait Islander Overall Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders scored significantly lower on the positive relations scale compared to those who were not (t = 2.14, p = 0.03) Pension status Overall those who received a pension had a significantly lower positive relations score than those who did not (t = 6.42, p < 0.001). 21

22 Table 11: Mean Ryff s positive relations scale scores by demographic characteristics Sex n Mean SD 95% CI Male * Female * Age group 18 to 24 years * 25 to 34 years to 44 years to 54 years to 64 years to 74 years years and over * Number of adults in household 1 adult * 2 adults * 3 or more adults * Area of residence Metropolitan * Country * Children in household No children * Children * Country of birth Australia England/ Ireland Other Language spoken at home English * Other * Marital status^ Married/ defacto * Separated/ divorced * Widowed * Never married * Education^ Secondary * Trade/ Certificate * Bachelor degree or higher * Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 2.3.3) * Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level ^ Don t know/ refused category not included 22

23 Table 11: Mean Ryff s positive relations scale scores by demographic characteristics (cont) n Mean SD 95% CI Work status Full time employed * Part time/ casual 441 employment * Unemployed Home duties * Retired * Student Unable to work because of disability/ Workcover/ invalid * Other Refused Income Up to $20, * $20,001 to $40, * $40,001 to $60, * $60,001 to $80, * Over $80, * Not stated * Dwelling Owned or being purchased * Rent from Housing Trust * Rented privately Retirement village Other Refused Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander^ No * Yes * Pension status No * Yes * Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 2.3.3) * Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level ^ Don t know/ refused category not included 23

24 3.4 Ryff s environmental mastery scale Overall n=1915 respondents provided responses to the Ryff s environmental mastery scale. The following section presents the mean score for each demographic characteristic. T-tests were used to compare two groups and one-way ANOVA was used to test differences between more than two groups with all post hoc comparisons conducted using the Scheffe test. The overall mean Ryff s environmental mastery score was 19.5 (SD 2.8, range 7 25). The results are presented in Table Gender There was no significant difference in the mean environmental mastery scale scores between males and females (t = 0.28, p = 0.78) Age group Overall there was a significant effect of age on the mean environmental mastery scale score (F = 4.43, p = 0.001). Post hoc testing indicated that the 55 to 64 year age group had a significantly higher mean environmental mastery score then those aged 18 to 34 and 45 to 54 years Household size (adults) Overall there was no significant difference in the mean environmental mastery score according to household size (F = 2.76, p = 0.06) Area of residence There was no significant difference in the mean environmental mastery scores for those living in metropolitan or country SA (t = -0.28, p = 0.78) Number of children in the household Respondents with children in the household did not have a significantly different mean environmental mastery score compared to those without children in the household (t = 1.34, p = 0.18). 24

25 3.4.6 Country of birth No significant differences in mean environmental mastery scores were found for country of birth (F = 1.53, p = 0.22) Language spoken at home There was a significant difference in the mean environmental mastery scores with those who spoke a language other than English at home having a significantly lower score compared to those who spoke English (t = 3.04, p = 0.002) Marital status Significant differences in the mean scores were seen according to marital status, F = 4.13, p = Post hoc comparisons found that respondents who were married/ defacto had a significantly higher environmental mastery score than respondents who were never married Education Level of education had a significant effect on environmental mastery scores, F = 4.78, p = Respondents reporting a secondary level of education had a significantly lower mean environmental mastery score compared to those with a bachelor degree or higher Work status Overall, work status demonstrated a significant effect on respondents mean environmental mastery score, F = 13.43, p < Respondents who undertook home duties had a significantly lower mean score for environmental mastery when compared to those employed full time. Respondents unable to work due to disability/ Workcover/ incapacity also had a significantly lower mean score compared to respondents who were employed full time, part time, undertook home duties, were retired, a student or were other work status Income Overall there was a significant difference in the mean scores for environmental mastery depending on income bracket, F = 6.07, p < Post hoc comparisons demonstrated that respondents reporting an income of up to $20,000 had a significantly lower mean score than respondents earning $60,000 and over. Those earning $20,001 to $40,000 scored significantly lower then those earning $80,000 and above. 25

26 Dwelling Overall there was a significant difference in the mean environmental mastery score depending on dwelling status, F = 7.07, p < Post hoc comparisons demonstrated that respondents who rented privately had a significantly lower score than respondents who owned or were purchasing their property Aboriginal and/ or Torres Strait Islander There was no significant difference in the mean environmental mastery score between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders compared to those who were not (t = 1.67, p = 0.12) Pension status Overall those who received a pension had a significantly lower environmental mastery score than those who did not (t = 3.18, p = 0.002). 26

27 Table 12: Mean Ryff s environmental mastery scale scores by demographic characteristics n Mean SD 95% CI Sex Male Female Age group 18 to 24 years * 25 to 34 years * 35 to 44 years to 54 years * 55 to 64 years * 65 to 74 years years and over Number of adults in household 1 adult adults or more adults Area of residence Metropolitan Country Children in household No children Children Country of birth Australia England/ Ireland Other Language spoken at home English * Other * Marital status^ Married/ de facto * Separated/ divorced Widowed Never married * Education^ Secondary * Trade/ Certificate Bachelor degree or higher * Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 2.3.3) * Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level ^ Don t know/ refused category not included 27

28 Table 12: Mean Ryff s environmental mastery scale scores by demographic characteristics (cont) n Mean SD 95% CI Work status Full time employed * Part time/ casual employment * Unemployed * Home duties * Retired * Student * Unable to work because of disability/ Workcover/ invalid * Other * Refused * Income Up to $20, * $20,001 to $40, $40,001 to $60, $60,001 to $80, * Over $80, * Not stated * Dwelling Owned or being purchased * Rent from Housing Trust Rented privately * Retirement village Other Refused Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander^ No * Yes * Pension status No * Yes * Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 2.3.3) * Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level ^ Don t know/ refused category not included 28

29 3.5 Diener s Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) Overall n=1908 respondents provided responses to Diener s Satisfaction with Life Scale. The categories of life satisfaction are presented in Table 13. Table 13: Categories of life satisfaction n % (95% CI) Extremely dissatisfied ( ) Dissatisfied ( ) Slightly dissatisfied ( ) Neutral ( ) Slightly satisfied ( ) Satisfied ( ) Extremely satisfied ( ) Total The following section presents the mean score for each demographic characteristic. T-tests were used to compare two groups and one-way ANOVA was used to test differences between more than two groups with all post hoc comparisons conducted using the Scheffe test. The overall mean Diener s Satisfaction with Life score was 26.3 (SD 5.7, range 5 35). The results are presented in Table Gender There was no significant difference in the mean Satisfaction with Life scores between males and females (t = 0.02, p = 0.99) Age group Overall there was no significant effect of age on the mean Satisfaction with Life score (F = 1.30, p = 0.25) Household size (adults) Overall there was a significant difference in the mean Satisfaction with Life score according to household size (F = 21.54, p < 0.001). Households with one adult scored significantly lower than those with two or more adults. 29

30 3.5.4 Area of residence There was no significant difference in the mean Satisfaction with Life scores for those living in metropolitan or country SA (t = -0.47, p = 0.64) Number of children in the household Overall there was a significant difference in the Satisfaction with Life score for respondents with children in the household compared to those without children in the household (t = -3.83, p < 0.001). Respondents with children had a significantly higher mean Satisfaction with Life score Country of birth No significant differences in mean Satisfaction with Life scores were found for country of birth (F = 0.52, p = 0.59) Language spoken at home There was no significant difference in the mean Satisfaction with Life scores with those who spoke a language other than English compared to those who spoke English (t = 1.82, p = 0.07) Marital status Significant differences in the mean scores were seen according to marital status, F = 33.08, p < Post hoc comparisons found that respondents who were married/ de facto were significantly more likely to demonstrate higher Satisfaction with Life scores compared to respondents who were separated/ divorced, widowed or never married. Respondents who were separated/ divorced were significantly more likely to demonstrate lower Satisfaction with Life scores then respondents who were widowed or never married as well as those married or de facto Education Level of education had a significant effect on Satisfaction with Life scores, F = 3.46, p = Respondents reporting a secondary level of education had a significantly lower mean score compared to those with a bachelor degree or higher. 30

31 Work status Overall, work status demonstrated a significant effect on respondents mean Satisfaction with Life score, F = 15.15, p < Respondents who were unable to work due to disability/ Workcover/ incapacity demonstrated lower mean Satisfaction with Life scores compared to all other categories except those unemployed, and those who were unemployed had a significantly lower score compared to those employed full or part time, retired, a student or undertaking home duties Income Overall there was a significant difference in the mean scores for Satisfaction with Life scores depending on income bracket, F = 9.00, p < Post hoc comparisons demonstrated that respondents earning up to $20,000 were significantly more likely to demonstrate lower Satisfaction with Life scores compared to respondents earning $60,000 and above. Respondents earning $20,001 to $40,000 demonstrated significantly lower mean life satisfaction scores compared to respondents earning $80,000 and above Dwelling Overall there was a significant difference in the mean satisfaction score depending on dwelling status, F = 8.14, p < Post hoc comparisons demonstrated that respondents who rented privately had a significantly lower score than respondents who owned or were purchasing their property Aboriginal and/ or Torres Strait Islander There was a significant difference in the mean Satisfaction with Life score between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders compared to those who were not (t = -2.24, p = 0.04), with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders reporting a higher mean score Pension status Overall those who received a pension had a significantly lower Satisfaction with Life score than those who did not (t = 2.57, p = 0.01). 31

32 Table 14: Mean Diener s Satisfaction with Life scores by demographic characteristics Sex n Mean SD 95% CI Male Female Age group 18 to 24 years to 34 years to 44 years to 54 years to 64 years to 74 years years and over Number of adults in household 1 adult * 2 adults * 3 or more adults * Area of residence Metropolitan Regional Children in household No children * Children * Country of birth Australia England/ Ireland Other Language spoken at home English * Other * Marital status^ Married/ de facto * Separated/ divorced * Widowed * Never married * Education^ Secondary * Trade/ Certificate Bachelor degree or higher * Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 2.3.3) * Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level ^ Don t know/ refused category not included 32

33 Table 14: Mean Diener s Satisfaction with Life scores by demographic characteristics (cont) Work status n Mean SD 95% CI Full time employed * Part time/ casual employment * Unemployed * Home duties * Retired * Student * Unable to work because of disability/ Workcover/ invalid * Other * Refused * Income Up to $20, * $20,001 to $40, * $40,001 to $60, $60,001 to $80, * Over $80, * Not stated Dwelling Owned or being purchased * Rent from Housing Trust Rented privately * Retirement village Other Refused Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander^ No * Yes * Pension status No * Yes * Note: The weighting of the data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding (see Section 2.3.3) * Mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level ^ Don t know/ refused category not included 33

34 3.6 Overall wellbeing A total wellbeing score was created from summing the scores of the two Ryff scale s and the Diener scale. Overall n=1849 respondents provided responses to all of the wellbeing scales. The following section presents the mean score for each demographic characteristic. T-tests were used to compare two groups and one-way ANOVA was used to test differences between more than two groups with all post hoc comparisons conducted using the Scheffe test. The overall mean wellbeing score was 69.9 (SD 9.9, range 28 90). The results are presented in Table Gender No significant differences were seen for overall wellbeing scores for males and females (t = , p = 0.20) Age group Overall there was no significant effect of age on the mean overall wellbeing score (F = 1.74, p = 0.11) Household size (adults) A significant difference in the mean overall wellbeing score was found dependant on household size (F = 20.21, p < 0.001). Households with one adult scored significantly lower than those with two or more adults Area of residence There was no significant difference in the mean overall wellbeing scores for those living in metropolitan or country SA (t = 0.42, p = 0.46) Number of children in the household A significant difference was demonstrated in the overall wellbeing score for those living with or without children in the house (t = -2.62, p < 0.009). Respondents living with children had a higher overall wellbeing score than those not living with children. 34

35 3.6.6 Country of birth No significant differences in mean overall wellbeing scores were found for country of birth (F = 0.45, p = 0.64) Language spoken at home A significant difference was demonstrated in the mean overall wellbeing scores for those who spoke a language other than English compared to those who spoke English (t = 3.51, p < 0.001). Respondents who spoke English demonstrated a higher mean score than those that did not Marital status Significant differences in the mean scores were seen according to marital status, F = 21.98, p < Post hoc comparisons found that respondents who were married/ de facto were significantly more likely to demonstrate higher overall wellbeing scores compared to respondents who were separated/ divorced, widowed or never married and those who were never married had significantly higher scores that those who were separated or divorced Education Level of education had a significant effect on overall wellbeing scores, F = 10.92, p = < Respondents reporting a secondary level of education or a trade/ certificate had a significantly lower mean score compared to those with a bachelor degree or higher Work status Overall, work status demonstrated a significant effect on respondents mean overall wellbeing scores, F = 15.71, p < Respondents who were unable to work due to disability/ Workcover/ incapacity demonstrated lower mean overall wellbeing scores compared to all other categories except those that were unemployed. Respondents who were unemployed had a significantly lower score compared to those employed full or part time, retired or a student. 35

36 Income Overall there was a significant difference in the overall wellbeing mean scores dependant on income bracket, F = 12.26, p < Post hoc comparisons demonstrated that respondents earning up to $20,000 were significantly more likely to demonstrate lower overall wellbeing scores compared to respondents earning $60,000 and above. Respondents earning up to $20,000 demonstrated significantly lower mean wellbeing scores compared to respondents earning $60,000 and above and those earning $20,001 to $60,000 had significantly lower scores than those earning $80,000 and above Dwelling A significant difference was found in the mean overall wellbeing scores dependant on dwelling status, F = 9.68, p < Post hoc comparisons demonstrated that respondents who rented privately or from housing trust had a significantly lower score than respondents who owned or were purchasing their property Aboriginal and/ or Torres Strait Islander There was no significant difference in the mean overall wellbeing scores between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders compared to those who were not (t = 0.09, p = 0.93) Pension status Overall those who received a pension had a significantly lower overall wellbeing score than those who did not (t = 4.30, p < 0.001). 36