Printer Friendly

Subjective well-being of the elderly in Xi Cheng district, Beijing.

1. Introduction

As the population ages, the health and well-being of the elderly will become an increasingly important issue for families, for health care providers, and for medical insurance systems. [1] In 2010 the Beijing Municipal Government developed a nine-point agenda for the support of the elderly and the disabled [2] that included a component on geriatric mental health. Evaluating this program will require ongoing assessment of the quality of life of Beijing's elderly that includes both objective measures of physical and mental health and subjective measures of individuals' satisfaction with their quality of life. 'Subjective well-being' is a person's overall evaluation of their quality of life based on their assessment of different aspects of their lives including the physical environment, familial relationships, economic conditions and so forth; such assessments are subjective, comprehensive, and relatively stable. [3] The current study aims to assess subjective well-being in a representative sample of Beijing's elderly.

2. Methods

2.1 Participants

The identification of participants in the survey is shown in Figure 1. A stratified random cluster sample of community-dwelling residents 60 to 80 years of age from seven neighborhoods of Xi Cheng District in Beijing was identified. Xi Cheng District is one of the two inner-city districts of Beijing; it has a total population of 1.2 million individuals. Potential subjects were invited to the local community center or, if they did not come to the community center, visited in their homes by research assistants. In total, 2342 individuals who did not have an obvious mental illness and who provided written informed consent to participate in the survey were administered the survey instruments. The study was approved by the institutional ethics board of the Bureau of Health of Xi Cheng District of Beijing.

2.2 Measurement tools

A detailed demographic and life style questionnaire designed for the study included the following self-completion items: gender, age, marital status, education level, employment status, type of household, quality of family relationships, type of housing, level of personal income, type of health insurance, manner of retirement, attitude towards retirement, adjustment to retirement, number of leisure activities over the prior week (including watching television, singing and dancing, reading, playing cards, watching movies, having a pet, calligraphy, stamp collection), self-reported temperament (on an introversion-extroversion dimension), self-report of ability to regulate one's own emotions, smoking history, drinking history, and regularity of exercise ('regular exercise' was coded as present if the respondent reported at least 30 minutes of exercise twice a week). Among the 2342 respondents, 108 (4.6%) reported that they were currently employed full-time; most of these respondents had not previously retired so they did not complete the questions about retirement.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness (MUNSH) [4] was used to assess respondents' subjective level of well-being over the prior couple of months. (For the purposes of the current study we equate 'subjective well-being' to 'happiness' as assessed by the MUNSH.) This is a 24-item, self-completion scale with 'yes' or 'no' responses that includes five items measuring positive attitudes (PA), five items measuring negative attitudes (NA), seven items measuring positive experiences (PE), and seven items measuring negative experiences (NE). Each 'positive' response is scored as '1' and each negative response is scored as '-1', but when computing the subscale scores and total scale score these are converted to a positive range so the range of values for the PA and NA subscales scores are 0-10, the range for the PE and NE subscales scores are 0-14, and the range for the total scale score is 0-48. A total score of 32 or above is considered a high level of happiness. For the Chinese version of the MUNSH, the test-retest reliability of the total score (using Spearman's correlation coefficient) is 0.87 and the internal validity of the 25 items in the full scale (using alpha) is 0.76. [5]

The Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS) [4] was developed by Xiao and colleagues by adapting international scales to reflect levels of social support in China. The scale has 10 self-report items and generates four separate scores: a total score, an objective support score, a subjective (perceived) support score, and a utilization of social support score. A total score of less than 33 signifies low social support; a score of 33 to 45 signifies moderate social support; and a score over 45 signifies high social support. The internal validity of the three subscales is good (alpha=0.83-0.85), but the overall internal reliability of the full scale is only fair (alpha=0.69); the test-retest reliability of the total scale score is excellent (ICC=0.92). [6]

The Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) [4] contains 20 items and has four subscale scores. An SAS standard score of 50 or higher denotes a high level of anxiety. [7] The internal reliability (alpha) of the Chinese version of the SAS is 0.93 and the validity (correlation with the Global Assessment Scale) is 0.71. The 20-item Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) [4] was created by the Duke University School of Medicine in 1965. The Chinese version has an internal reliability (split-half correlation) of 0.92 and a validity (correlation with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) of 0.84 [4]; a score of 53 or higher denotes a high level of depression.

The questionnaires were all self-completion instruments, but for a small number of participants who were illiterate or otherwise unable to complete the questionnaires, the interviewer read the items to the respondent. On average the full battery of questionnaires took 40 minutes to complete.

2.3 Statistical methods

Fox Pro 6.0 software was used to build a database and SPSS 13.0 software was used to perform the statistical analysis. The relationship of the overall level of happiness to other variables was assessed using t-tests, ANOVA, and multiple linear regression models. When the level of happiness was significantly different across multiple subgroups, multiple comparison tests were conducted using the Tukey test. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship of the total happiness score and the four happiness subscale scores (PA, NA, PE and NE) with the level of social support, the level of anxiety symptoms, the level of depressive symptoms, and with other continuous measures.

Five two-step linear regression analyses were conducted with the overall happiness score on the MUNSH and each of the four subscale scores as the dependent variables. In the first step, nine independent variables were forced into the model: gender, age, education (8 levels), income (8 levels), marital status (currently married vs. other), family relationships (self-rated as 'poor' vs. other), social support (SSRS total score), anxiety (SAS total score), and depression (SDS total score). In the second step, other variables that were significant in the univariate analysis (Table 1) were entered by backward stepwise regression, so they needed to be independently related to the dependent variable to be retained in the model. Variables considered in the second step included exercise (regular exercise vs. other), current alcohol use, current smoking, frequency of leisure activities (3 levels), self-reported extroverted personality (3 levels), self-reported ability to regulate mood (3 levels), medical insurance (regular government-based insurance vs. other), home ownership, type of household (parents plus children vs. other), willingness to retire at the government-mandated age, age of retirement (at mandated age vs. other), adjustment to retirement (3 levels), current employment status (still in full employment vs. other), and profession (factory worker vs. other). In the linear regression analysis all ranked variables were treated as continuous variables. A total of 2242 cases were considered in the analyses after removal of cases with missing data.

3. Results

3.1 Characteristics of the sample

The 2342 respondents included 1067 (45.6%) males and 1275 (54.4%) females who had a mean (sd) age of 67.8 (4.9) years. Among them, 2135 (91.2%) were of Han ethnicity, 2036 (86.9%) were currently married, 1180 (50.4%) had completed high school, 1945 (83.0%) owned their own home, 369 (15.8%) had a personal monthly income of 3000 renminbi ($480) or greater, and 2085 (89.0%) reported that their family relationships were 'good'.

Among the participants, 423 (18.1%) rated their social support as 'poor' (SSRS score <33), 201 (8.6%) had a high level of depressive symptoms (standardized SDS score [greater than or equal to] 53), and 126 (5.3%) had a high level of anxiety symptoms (standardized SAS score [greater than or equal to] 50). The mean (sd) score of the MUNSH was 36.0 (9.0) and the mean scores of the positive factor (PA), negative factor (NA), positive experience (PE), and negative experience (NE) subscales were 29.9 (2.8), 25.4 (2.3), 34.0 (3.5), and 26.4 (3.0), respectively. In total 1616 (69.0%) respondents had a total MUNSH score of 32 or higher, indicating that they had a high level of happiness with their current situation.

3.2 Univariate relationship of level of happiness with demographic and other factors

The relationship of the total happiness score and of the four subscale scores to the demographic and other characteristics of the respondents is shown in Table 1. The results for the total score and those for the four subscale scores varied in specific details but were generally consistent with each other. High reported overall happiness and strong positive attitudes and experiences were associated with higher educational attainment, higher personal income, having government-sponsored health insurance, self-reports of good family relationships, being extroverted, being able to regulate one's mood, and regular exercise. Low reported overall happiness and strong negative attitudes and experiences were associated with divorce, being an agricultural laborer (i.e., farmer), living in a multiple-family household, living in government-supported low-rental housing, being currently still in fulltime employment, being a previous drinker, and self-reported depression, anxiety and poor adjustment to retirement. Gender, attitude about retirement and smoking history were not strongly associated with level of happiness.

The correlation of the total happiness score and the four happiness subscale scores with SDS, SAS, SSRS, age, education, and income are shown in Table 2. The measures of happiness were all strongly correlated with the level of depression and the level of anxiety (absolute value of all [r.sub.s] >0.30). The five measures of happiness were only moderately correlated with the overall social support measure (absolute value of all [r.sub.s] >0.17 and [less than or equal to] 0.30). And the correlations of happiness with income, age, and level of education--despite being statistically significant because of the large sample size--were all relatively weak (absolute value of all [r.sub.s] <0.20). The absolute value of the correlations of the four MUNSH subscale scores with each other ranged from 0.29 to 0.60 (average of six correlations=0.44).

3.3 Multivariate analyses

The multivariate linear regression results for the total MUNSH happiness score are shown in Table 3. The self-reported level of depression was, by far, most closely associated with the overall self-reported level of happiness. Other important factors were the self-reported level of anxiety, social support, income level, family relationships, self-regulation of emotion, and regular exercise. Less important (but still statistically significant) factors included retiring at the government-mandated age for retirement and the number of leisure activities. Interestingly, marital status, gender, age and educational level were not independently associated with the overall level of happiness. The adjusted [R.sup.2] for the model was 0.383, indicating that the 13 variables included in the model account for 38% of the variance in overall happiness.

Table 4 shows the results of the multivariate linear regression analyses for each of the four subscales of the MUNSH, only showing the independent variables that were statistically significant. The level of depression (SDS total score) and level of anxiety (SAS total score) were significant factors in all four models. Three other factors appeared in three of the four models: level of social support (not in the model for negative attitudes); self-report of poor family relationships (not in the model for positive attitudes); and regular exercise (not in the model for positive attitudes). Not having government-based health insurance and not owning one's own home were significantly related to negative attitudes and to negative experiences. All the other statistically significant independent variables were only included in one of the four regression models. The adjusted [R.sup.2] for the four models ranged from 0.160 to 0.274.

4. Discussion

4.1 Main findings

This cross-sectional study in a representative sample of 2342 elderly residents from Xi Cheng District in Beijing found that both psychological and social factors are closely associated with subjective well-being as assessed by the Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness (MUNSH). Only a minority of respondents (8.6%) reported high levels of depression, but the level of depressive symptoms was, nevertheless, the factor most strongly associated with subjective well-being. Similarly, an even smaller proportion of respondents (5.3%) reported high levels of anxiety, but the level of anxiety was also strongly associated with subjective well-being. The other factors that were most consistently associated with overall well-being and the four components of well-being assessed by the MUNSH (Positive Attitude, Negative Attitude, Positive Experience, and Negative Experience) were social support, self-reports of the quality of family relationships, and regular exercise. Other factors associated with overall subjective well-being (but not necessarily with the four components of well-being) include personal income, self-report of ability to regulate mood, retirement at the government-specified age, and the number of regular leisure activities. Somewhat surprisingly, after adjustment for the other factors, gender, age, marital status and level of education were not significantly related to subjective well-being.

Our findings are broadly consistent with previous studies from other countries [8-11] which find that elderly community members' level of happiness is related to their mental health, relationships with relatives, income, physical activity level, and leisure activities, but not related to gender or marital status. Our findings also confirm those of other studies in China that report that subjective well-being is related to psychological health, [12] income level, [13,14] social support (particularly from family members), [15-17] physical activity, [18] and leisure activities. [13] However, our study did not confirm a previous study from China'131 which found that widows and widowers had much poorer subjective well-being.

Given the importance of government-mandated retirement in China, we developed three variables to assess the role of retirement on subjective well-being: respondents' attitude about the government-mandated retirement age, respondent's actual retirement age (at the government-mandated age or not), and respondents' self-reported adjustment to retirement. Retiring at the mandated age was independently related to overall happiness score and to the Positive Experience subscale score but neither of the other two variables was independently related to any of the happiness measures. Self-reported adjustment to retirement was related to subjective well-being in the univariate analysis but it no longer remained significant after adjustment for other variables in the multivariate analyses. Further work will be needed to develop more sensitive measures of the effect of retirement on elderly individuals.

The four subscales of the MUNSH were moderately to highly correlated (absolute values of [r.sub.s] ranged 0.29 to 0.60). The univariate analysis found several differences in the variables associated with each of the four subscales, but the multivariate analysis found that depressive and anxiety symptoms were independent predictors of all four subscales scores and that social support, self-report of family functioning, and participating in regular exercise were predictors of three of the four subscale scores. Each subscale also had some unique predictors in the multivariate models, but the overall impression is that the association networks of the four subscales are more similar than different. Further work, preferably in prospective studies, will be needed to reassess the independence of the constructs assessed by the subscales and to determine whether there is 'added value' to separating the total happiness score into the four component scores.

4.2 Limitations

There are several issues that need to be considered when interpreting these results. a) Xi Cheng District is one of the most economically developed of the 14 districts and 2 counties in the Beijing Municipality so, despite being quite representative of the Xi Cheng District, the results may not apply to other parts of Beijing or to other parts of urban China. b) Personal income, particularly for retirees, does not necessarily reflect the living standard of the individual, which may be more directly influenced by overall family income (including support from children). In the future it would be helpful to measure per capita family income and use that as the proxy for the living standard of the individual. c) Several of the key variables assessed in this study (including respondents' attitude to retirement, self-report of the quality of family relationships, temperament, regulation of mood and so forth) are obtained from a questionnaire developed by the authors that is of unknown reliability and validity. The ability of this instrument to reliably assess these phenomena needs to be formally assessed. d) The exclusion of 100 respondents--most of whom were in fulltime employment at the time of the survey --from the multivariate analyses may have biased the results. e) The study relies on the validity of the MUNSH in this elderly urban sample but the previous assessment of the reliability and validity of this scale in China was more than a decade ago and involved a different type of respondent. It will be important to reassess this scale's reliability and validity in elderly urban residents before using it to monitor changes in well-being before and after specific community interventions. f) Finally, this is a cross-sectional study so the relationships identified between subjective well-being and the other variables are only associations; no inferences can be made about the causal direction of these associations.

4.3 Significance

Increasing life-expectancy and the one-child-per-family policy in urban China have resulted in an accelerated rate of aging of the urban population. This sudden graying of urban China combined with a relatively young government-mandated urban retirement age (50 to 55 in females and 60 in males) is resulting in an unexpectedly rapid increase in the numbers of idle elderly. Ensuring the quality of life and well-being of this rapidly expanding segment of the population has become a major focus of the government's social welfare programs. But given the complexity of the factors involved and the ever-changing environment in which these factors operate, designing evidence-based interventions to achieve this goal is a major scientific challenge.

The close association between well-being and psychological symptoms of depression and anxiety found in this study suggest that directly treating depression and anxiety would be an appropriate target for programs aimed at improving the quality of life and well-being of the elderly. But only a small minority of respondents had depressive or anxiety symptoms that were severe enough to merit clinical intervention, so this type of intervention would not benefit most community members. Moreover, given the cross-sectional nature of the study, it is possible that the depressive and anxiety symptoms were the result (not the cause) of a low quality of life or of underlying social problems, so treating the psychological symptoms may not address the main problems. Other potential targets for intervention suggested by the study include the expansion of social support networks, reducing intra-family stresses, improving emotional self-regulation, encouraging regular exercise and expanding the range of leisure activities.

However, the development and testing of specific interventions aimed at improving the well-being of elderly urban residents must wait until well-designed prospective studies clarify the complex causal pathways that interconnect the many psychosocial variables related to quality of life.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflict of interest related to this study.

Acknowledgment

This report is a secondary analysis of the results of a project entitled 'Demonstration Project of Psychological Counseling and Support for the Elderly' which was an ancillary project of the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Department's key project entitled 'Demonstration Project of Support for the Health of Urban Residents.'

Funding

This project was funded by the Beijing Sustainable Science and Technology Commission (Project number: Z101106053910009).

(received: 2012-03-25; accepted: 2012-08-22)

References

[1.] Hoi le V, Chuc NT, Lindholm L. Health-related quality of life, and its determinants among older people in rural Vietnam. BMC Public Health 2010; 10: 549.

[2.] Anonymous.280 thousand elderly residents of Xi Cheng District benefit from the 'Nine-point agenda for supporting the elderly and the disabled' (29 November 2010). News report on the Xi Cheng District government website. http://www.bjxch.gov.cn/ pub/website/xwzx/xwzx_xcdtai/201011/t20101129_1173341.html (Accessed 3 November 2012).

[3.] Diener E, Eunkook MS, Richard EL, Smith HL. Subjective well-being: three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin 1999; 125(2): 276-302.

[4.] Wang XD, Wang XL, Ma H. Mental Health Rating Scale Manual. Beijing: Chinese Mental Health Journal Press, 1999: 86-88, 127-130, 194-196, 235-238. (in Chinese)

[5.] Liu RG, Gong YX. The application of Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness, MUNSH. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology 1999; 7(2): 107-108. (in Chinese)

[6.] Liu JW, Li FY, Lian YL. Research on the reliability and validity of the Social Support Rating Scale, SSRS. Journal of Xinjiang Medical University 2008; 31(1): 1-3. (in Chinese)

[7.] Tao M, Gao JF. The reliability and validity of revised Self-rating Anxiety Scale, SAS. Chinese Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases 1994; 20(5): 301-303. (in Chinese)

[8.] Layard R. Economics. Measuring subjective well-being. Science 2010; 327(5965): 534-535.

[9.] Hirosaki M, Ishimoto Y, Kasahar Y, Konno A, Kimura Y, Fukutomi E, et al. Self-rated happiness is associated with functional ability, mood, quality of life and income, but not with medical condition in community-dwelling elderly in Japan. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2011; 11(4): 531-533.

[10.] Arslantas D, Unsal A, Metintas S, Koc F, Arslantas A. Life quality and daily life activities of elderly people in rural areas, Eskijehir (Turkey). Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2009; 48(2): 127-131.

[11.] de Souza Santos CA, Dantas EE, Moreira MH. Correlation of physical aptitude; functional capacity, corporal balance and quality of life among elderly women submitted to a postmenopausal physical activities program. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2011; 53(3): 344-349.

[12.] Sun LJ. Factors related to the psychological satisfaction and well-being of elderly residents of Beijing. Chinese Journal of Gerontology 2008; 28(2): 308-310. (in Chinese)

[13.] Wang F, Wang X, Zhuang HP, Kuang CY. Analysis of elderly citizens' subjective well-being and its influencing factors. Medicine and Society 2010; 23(12): 9-12. (in Chinese)

[14.] Zhang XH, Xia Y. Survey on well-being of the elderly in Hangzhou Neighborhoods. Zhejiang Medicine 2007; 29(3): 279-282. (in Chinese)

[15.] Zhang JJ, Yao BX, Fang SH. Subjective well-being, life satisfaction in urban residents and the factors that affect them. Soft Science of Health 2009; 23(4): 458. (in Chinese)

[16.] Chen Y. Initial success in social pilot of home care service for the elderly in Xicheng District. China Civil Affairs 2008; 3: 49-50. (in Chinese)

[17.] Fu JF, Pang AL, Liu MT. Study on social support and subjective well-being in the elderly urban residents. Adult Education 2008(254): 84-85. (in Chinese)

[18.] Sun FX, Li XL, Zou ZM, Yuan BG, SHI Y, Yuan HW. Survey on health status and the related programs in 100 retired elderly people. Attend to Practice and Research 2008; 5(7): 95-96. (in Chinese)

[19.] Li MC, Li MY, Zhang MY, Xie Y, Bian YH, Zhang MY. The influence of leisure activities on the subjective well-being of elderly citizens of Beijing. Chinese Journal of Gerontology 2008; 31(4): 675-677. (in Chinese)

Shuo LI (1), Zhaohui XIE (2) *, Jun SHAO1, Cunli XIAO (1), Liang TIAN (3), Rongfeng ZHAO (1), Jiakai GONG (1), Jinxiang HAN (1) Yue WANG (1), Chao HAN1, Liping DANG (1), Yushi ZHANG (1), Bo CHEN (1), Xiaojing LUO (1), Wei GUO (1)

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1002-0829.2012.06.005

(1) Beijing Xicheng Ping'an Hospital, Beijing, China

(2) Electric Power Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

(3) Xicheng District Community Mental Health Center, Beijing, China

* Correspondence: zhaohuixie2003@yahoo.com.cn Dr. Shuo Li is a graduate of the School of Medicine at Beijing University. He is an attending psychiatrist and director of the Ping An Hospital (a district psychiatric hospital) in the Xi Cheng District of Beijing. He has coordinated several community-based mental health projects including a demonstration project for the '686' initiative that identifies and treats community members with severe mental illnesses. His main research interest is the psychological health of elderly community members.
Table 1. Level of well-being (based on MUNSH) in 2342 elderly in
Xi Cheng district, Beijing (mean [sd])

                                         Positive          Negative
Variable                         n       attitude          attitude

Full sample                     2342    29.9 (2.8)        25.4 (2.3)

Gender                          2342
  Male                          1067    29.9 (2.8)        25.2 (2.2)
  Female                        1275    29.9 (2.8)        25.4 (2.4)
  t-test (p-value)               --     0.4 (0.695)      -0.9 (0.374)

Marital status                  2342
1. Never married                 26     29.7 (2.9)        25.5 (2.4)
2. Married                      2012    29.9 (2.8)        25.3 (2.2)
3. Divorced                      36     29.4 (3.0)        26.5 (3.0)
4. Re-married                    24     31.2 (2.3)        25.0 (1.9)
5. Widowed                      244     29.7 (2.8)        25.8 (2.7)
  F (p-value)                    --     2.0 (0.090)      4.5 (0.001)
  Multiple comparisons           --         --               3>4

Educational level               2342
1. Illiterate                    70     29.7 (2.9)        25.7 (2.8)
2. Primary school               310     29.6 (2.9)        25.8 (2.7)
3. Middle school                782     30.0 (2.8)        25.4 (2.2)
4. High school                  374     29.8 (2.7)        25.6 (2.5)
5. Technical school             356     30.0 (2.8)        25.3 (2.2)
6. Community college            275     29.9 (2.7)        25.1 (2.0)
7. College and above            175     30.1 (2.7)        24.9 (1.8)
  F (p-value)                    --     1.1 (0.358)      4.4 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons           --         --            2>6,7; 1>7

Occupation                      2342
1. Technician                   466     30.1 (2.8)        25.3 (2.1)
2. Government worker            174     29.6 (2.6)        24.9 (1.9)
3. Military personnel            10     29.7 (2.7)        25.2 (3.2)
4. Business                      69     30.7 (2.4)        25.7 (2.8)
5. Service staff                 95     29.3 (2.9)        26.3 (2.8)
6. Farmer                        15     28.6 (2.8)        26.3 (2.3)
7. Factory worker               1120    29.9 (2.8)        25.4 (2.4)
8. Office worker                131     30.1 (2.9)        25.1 (1.9)
9. Teacher                      121     30.7 (2.5)        25.2 (2.1)
10. Unemployed                   80     29.0 (2.8)        26.5 (2.9)
11. Other/self-employed          61     29.4 (2.5)        24.9 (1.8)
  F (p-value)                    --    3.8 (<0.001)      5.5 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons           --        4,9>6           10>2,11

Type of household               2342
1. Parents and children         1307    29.8 (2.9)        25.2 (2.1)
2. Three generations            673     30.1 (2.7)        25.4 (2.3)
3. Multiple families            362     29.8 (2.7)        26.2 (2.9)
  F (p-value)                    --     2.7 (0.066)     27.8 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons           --         --              3>2,1

Family relationships            2342
1. Good                         2089    30.0 (2.8)        25.3 (2.2)
2. Fair                         218     29.1 (2.9)        26.4 (2.7)
3. Bad                           35     28.9 (2.8)        26.5 (2.5)
  F (p-value)                    --    12.8 (<0.001)    25.8 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons           --         1>3             3,2>1

Housing/living                  2342
1. Own a house                  1945    29.9 (2.8)        25.3 (2.2)
2. Parents' house                87     30.4 (2.6)        26.0 (2.3)
3. Children's house              60     29.4 (3.1)        25.8 (2.3)
4. Low-rent apartment            66     30.2 (2.4)        26.7(3.0)
5. Rented apartment             128     29.9 (2.6)        26.1 (2.5)
6. Other                         56     30.6 (2.5)        25.7 (2.9)
  F (p-value)                    --     1.8 (0.108)      9.2 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons           --         --              4>6,1

Income                          2342
1. <999                         158     29.3 (3.1)        26.6 (2.9)
2. 1000-1999                    546     29.8 (2.8)        25.8 (2.5)
3. 2000-2999                    1269    29.9 (2.8)        25.3 (2.2)
4. 3000-3999                    242     30.2 (2.6)        24.8 (1.7)
5. 4000-4999                     93     30.5 (2.7)        24.9 (1.9)
6. >5000                         34     30.8 (2.6)        24.8 (1.6)
  F (p-value)                    --     3.4 (0.005)     13.4 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons           --        6,5>1       1>3,5,6; 2>5,4,6

Health insurance                2342
1. Fully paid by workplace      192     30.1 (2.6)        25.3 (2.4)
2. Government insurance         2087    29.9 (2.8)        25.4 (2.3)
3. Commercial insurance          7      29.1 (2.5)        26.6 (2.5)
4. Self-pay                      56     29.4 (2.9)        27.3 (2.7)
  F (p-value)                    --     1.1 (0.358)     14.3 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons           --         --              4>1,2

Manner of retirement            2248    29.9 (2.8)        25.4 (2.3)
1. Retired at normal age        1884    30.1 (2.7)        25.3 (2.3)
2. Early retirement             306     29.3 (2.8)        25.6 (2.3)
3. Late retirement               37     28.9 (2.4)        25.9 (3.0)
4. Others                        21     28.1 (3.7)        25.7 (2.3)
  F (p-value)                    --    11.6 (<0.001)     2.1 (0.101)
  Multiple comparison            --         1>4               --

Attitude toward retirement      2243    29.9 (2.8)        25.4 (2.3)
1. Regulation age okay          1804    30.1 (2.7)        25.3 (2.2)
2. Eager to retire              215     29.4 (2.9)        25.5 (2.2)
3. Reluctant to retire          212     28.8 (2.8)        25.8 (2.7)
4. Others                        12     28.9 (3.3)        25.0 (2.9)
  F (p-value)                    --    17.4 (<0.001)     3.6 (0.013)
  Multiple comparisons           --         --                --

Adjustment to retirement        2248    29.9 (2.8)        25.4 (2.3)
1. Well-adjusted                1778    30.0 (2.7)        25.3 (2.3)
2. Not very well adjusted       440     29.5 (2.9)        25.5 (2.2)
3. Cannot adjust                 30     28.4 (2.7)        26.5 (3.5)
  F (p-value)                    --    11.5 (<0.001)     3.7 (0.025)
  Multiple comparisons           --         1>3             3>2,1

Temperament (self-report)       2342
1. Introvert                    486     29.5 (3.0)        25.4 (2.5)
2. Intermediate                 940     29.8 (2.7)        25.7 (2.4)
3. Extrovert                    916     30.2 (2.7)        25.1 (2.1)
  F (p-value)                    --    11.1 (<0.001)    14.2 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons           --        3,2>1            2,1>3

Self-regulation of mood         2342
1. Strong                       1471    30.3 (2.6)        25.2 (2.2)
2. Medium                       782     29.3 (2.9)        25.7 (2.4)
3. Weak                          89     28.8 (3.0)        26.9 (3.2)
  F (p-value)                    --    46.6 (<0.001)    32.8 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons           --        1>2,3            3>2>1

Smoking status                  2342
1. Current smoker               362     29.8 (2.9)        25.4 (2.3)
2. Never smoked                 1903    29.9 (2.7)        25.4 (2.3)
3. Previously smoked             77     29.2 (2.9)        25.4 (2.5)
  F (p-value)                    --     3.0 (0.048)      0.1 (0.894)
  Multiple comparisons           --         2>3               --

Drinking status                 2342
1. Current drinker              313     29.8 (2.7)        25.3 (2.3)
2. Never drinks                 1996    29.9 (2.8)        25.4 (2.3)
3. Previous drinker              33     29.0 (2.6)        26.2 (2.7)
  F (p-value)                    --     1.9 (0.157)      2.1 (0.117)
  Multiple comparisons           --         --                --

Regular physical exercise       2342
  Yes                           1826    30.0 (2.7)        25.3 (2.2)
  No                            516     29.7 (2.9)        25.9 (2.6)
  t-test (p-value)                      2.0 (0.047)     -5.8 (<0.001)

Regular leisure activities      2342
1. None                          85     29.1 (3.0)        25.4 (2.5)
2. 1-2 types of activities      1749    29.8 (2.7)        25.4 (2.3)
3. 3-8 types of activities      508     30.3 (2.8)        25.3 (2.2)
  F (p-value)                    --    9.9 (<0.001)      0.3 (0.726)
  Multiple comparisons           --        2,3>1              --

Anxiety (SAS score > 50)        2342
  No                            2216    30.0 (2.7)        25.2 (2.1)
  Yes                           126     28.5 (3.3)        28.3 (3.1)
  t-test (p-value)               --      5.8(0.00)      -15.4 (<0.001)

Depression (SDS score > 53)     2342
  No                            2141    30.0 (2.7)        25.1 (2.0)
  Yes                           201     28.5 (3.1)        28.5 (3.0)
  t-test (p-value)               --    7.6 (<0.001)     -21.5 (<0.001)

Social support                  2342
1. Low (SSRS score <33)         423     28.7 (2.8)        26.4 (2.9)
2. Medium (SSRS score=33-45)    1469    30.0 (2.7)        25.2 (2.1)
3. High (SSRS score >45)        450     30.9 (2.5)        25.2 (2.1)
  F (p-value)                    --    76.8 (<0.001)    45.3 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons           --        3>2>1            1>3,2

Employment status               2342
  Still working fulltime        108     29.6 (3.0)        26.1 (2.7)
  Retired                       2234    29.9 (2.8)        25.4 (2.3)
  t-test (p-value)               --    -1.3 (0.203)      3.4 (0.001)

                                   Positive           Negative
Variable                          experience         experience

Full sample                       34.0 (3.5)         26.4 (3.0)

Gender
  Male                            34.0 (3.5)         26.3 (3.0)
  Female                          33.9 (3.5)         26.5 (3.1)
  t-test (p-value)               1.0 (0.310)        -1.4 (0.173)

Marital status
1. Never married                  33.8 (3.7)         26.8 (3.1)
2. Married                        34.0 (3.5)         26.3 (2.9)
3. Divorced                       32.4 (4.0)         28.3 (3.7)
4. Re-married                     33.9 (3.8)         26.8 (3.0)
5. Widowed                        33.7 (3.7)         27.0 (3.4)
  F (p-value)                    2.4 (0.049)        6.5 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons                --                 3>2

Educational level
1. Illiterate                     34.2 (3.5)         27.0 (3.8)
2. Primary school                 33.4 (3.8)         27.0 (3.4)
3. Middle school                  34.0 (3.5)         26.4 (3.0)
4. High school                    33.6 (3.6)         26.8 (3.1)
5. Technical school               34.3 (3.9)         26.2 (2.9)
6. Community college              34.4 (3.3)         25.9 (2.5)
7. College and above              34.6 (2.9)         25.6 (2.2)
  F (p-value)                    4.1 (<0.001)       7.5 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons              7>4,2             2,1,4>6,7

Occupation
1. Technician                     34.2 (3.4)         26.1 (2.7)
2. Government worker              34.4 (3.0)         25.9 (2.4)
3. Military personnel             33.7 (4.1)         26.2 (3.6)
4. Business                       33.4 (3.9)         26.9 (3.3)
5. Service staff                  33.0 (3.9)         27.9 (4.0)
6. Farmer                         32.7 (2.9)         29.1 (3.2)
7. Factory worker                 33.9 (3.5)         26.5 (3.1)
8. Office worker                  34.7 (3.2)         25.7 (2.3)
9. Teacher                        34.9 (3.2)         25.9 (2.9)
10. Unemployed                    32.7 (4.1)         27.9 (3.8)
11. Other/self-employed           33.6 (3.6)         25.7 (2.0)
  F (p-value)                    4.1 (<0.001)       8.9 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons                --         6>4,7,3,1,9,2,11,8;
                                                     10,5>2,11,8
Type of household
1. Parents and children           33.9 (3.5)         26.2 (2.7)
2. Three generations              34.2 (3.3)         26.4 (2.9)
3. Multiple families              33.8 (3.8)         27.4 (3.8)
  F (p-value)                    2.5 (0.079)        26.6 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons                --                3>2,1

Family relationships
1. Good                           34.2 (3.4)         26.3 (2.9)
2. Fair                           32.5 (3.9)         27.8 (3.6)
3. Bad                            31.4 (3.9)         27.7 (3.9)
  F (p-value)                   31.4 (<0.001)       26.5 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons              1>2,3               2,3>1

Housing/living
1. Own a house                    34.0 (3.5)         26.2 (2.8)
2. Parents' house                 33.7 (3.7)         27.1 (3.4)
3. Children's house               33.3 (3.8)         27.4 (3.5)
4. Low-rent apartment             33.7 (3.1)         28.2 (4.4)
5. Rented apartment               33.8 (3.6)         27.4 (3.6)
6. Other                          34.7 (3.4)         26.5 (3.0)
  F (p-value)                    1.2 (0.308)        11.7 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons                --                4>6,1

Income
1. <999                           32.6 (4.1)         28.0 (3.8)
2. 1000-1999                      33.6 (3.6)         26.9 (3.3)
3. 2000-2999                      34.1 (3.4)         26.3 (2.9)
4. 3000-3999                      34.5 (3.3)         25.6 (2.3)
5. 4000-4999                      34.6 (3.3)         25.3 (2.0)
6. >5000                          34.1 (2.6)         25.9 (2.6)
  F (p-value)                    8.6 (<0.001)       19.1 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons            5,4,3,6>1       1>3,6,4,5; 2>4,5

Health insurance
1. Fully paid by workplace        34.1 (3.5)         26.2 (2.9)
2. Government insurance           34.0 (3.5)         26.3 (3.0)
3. Commercial insurance           30.9 (3.2)         28.9 (3.2)
4. Self-pay                       32.7 (3.7)         29.5 (3.7)
  F (p-value)                    4.5 (0.004)        22.3 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons              1,2>3              4,3>2,1

Manner of retirement              34.0 (3.5)         26.4 (3.0)
1. Retired at normal age          34.1 (3.4)         26.3 (2.9)
2. Early retirement               33.4 (3.7)         26.7 (3.2)
3. Late retirement                33.1 (3.9)         26.8 (3.8)
4. Others                         33.7 (3.8)         27.1 (3.3)
  F (p-value)                    5.1 (0.002)         1.9 (0.129)
  Multiple comparison                 --                 --

Attitude toward retirement        34.0 (3.5)         26.4 (3.0)
1. Regulation age okay            34.2 (3.4)         26.3 (2.9)
2. Eager to retire                33.6 (3.7)         26.3 (3.1)
3. Reluctant to retire            33.2 (3.9)         26.8 (3.5)
4. Others                         33.4 (3.9)         26.0 (3.1)
  F (p-value)                    6.0 (<0.001)        1.8 (0.147)
  Multiple comparisons                --                 --

Adjustment to retirement          34.0 (3.5)         26.4 (3.0)
1. Well-adjusted                  34.2 (3.4)         26.3 (2.9)
2. Not very well adjusted         33.3 (3.5)         26.7 (3.1)
3. Cannot adjust                  32.3 (3.1)         27.4 (4.4)
  F (p-value)                   14.3 (<0.001)        5.8 (0.003)
  Multiple comparisons               1>3                 --

Temperament (self-report)
1. Introvert                      33.6 (3.6)         26.3 (2.9)
2. Intermediate                   33.8 (3.6)         26.7 (3.2)
3. Extrovert                      34.4 (3.3)         26.2 (2.9)
  F (p-value)                    9.8 (<0.001)       8.1 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons              3>2,1               2>1,3

Self-regulation of mood
1. Strong                         34.6 (3.1)         26.1 (2.8)
2. Medium                         33.1 (3.7)         26.8 (3.1)
3. Weak                           31.4 (4.2)         28.6 (4.0)
  F (p-value)                   78.9 (<0.001)       39.7 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons              1>2>3               3>2>1

Smoking status
1. Current smoker                 34.1 (3.3)         26.4 (3.0)
2. Never smoked                   34.0 (3.5)         26.4 (3.0)
3. Previously smoked              32.8 (3.8)         26.4 (3.6)
  F (p-value)                    4.2 (0.015)        0.07 (0.930)
  Multiple comparisons              1,2>3                --

Drinking status
1. Current drinker                34.0 (3.4)         26.2 (3.0)
2. Never drinks                   34.0 (3.5)         26.4 (3.0)
3. Previous drinker               32.4 (4.0)         27.7 (3.7)
  F (p-value)                    3.4 (0.032)         4.1 (0.016)
  Multiple comparisons              1,2>3               3>2,1

Regular physical exercise
  Yes                             34.2 (3.4)         26.2 (2.8)
  No                              33.3 (3.8)         27.3 (3.5)
  t-test (p-value)               5.0 (<0.001)       -7.2 (<0.001)

Regular leisure activities
1. None                           34.0 (4.0)         25.9 (3.1)
2. 1-2 types of activities        33.9 (3.5)         26.5 (3.0)
3. 3-8 types of activities        34.3 (3.4)         26.2 (2.9)
  F (p-value)                    3.7 (0.024)         4.0 (0.018)
  Multiple comparisons                --                 --

Anxiety (SAS score > 50)
  No                              34.1 (3.4)         26.2 (2.8)
  Yes                             31.0 (3.9)         29.9 (3.8)
  t-test (p-value)               9.9 (<0.001)      -13.8 (<0.001)

Depression (SDS score > 53)
  No                              34.3 (3.3)         26.0 (2.6)
  Yes                             30.9 (3.6)         30.7 (3.8)
  t-test (p-value)              13.6 (<0.001)      -23.4 (<0.001)

Social support
1. Low (SSRS score <33)           31.8 (4.1)         27.8 (3.7)
2. Medium (SSRS score=33-45)      34.2 (3.3)         26.2 (2.7)
3. High (SSRS score >45)          35.2 (2.6)         25.9 (2.9)
  F (p-value)                   124.0 (<0.001)      62.5 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons              3>2>1,              1>2,3

Employment status
  Still working fulltime          33.2 (3.7)         27.5 (3.5)
  Retired                         34.0 (3.5)         26.4 (3.0)
  t-test (p-value)               -2.3 (0.020)       3.7 (<0.001)

                                     Total
                                   happiness
Variable                             score

Full sample                        36.0 (9.0)

Gender
  Male                             36.3 (8.7)
  Female                           35.8 (9.2)
  t-test (p-value)                1.2 (0.239)

Marital status
1. Never married                   35.1 (9.4)
2. Married                         36.3 (8.8)
3. Divorced                       31.0 (10.8)
4. Re-married                      37.3 (8.7)
5. Widowed                         34.6 (9.8)
  F (p-value)                     5.0 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons               4,2>3

Educational level
1. Illiterate                     35.1 (10.3)
2. Primary school                 34.2 (10.0)
3. Middle school                   36.2 (8.8)
4. High school                     34.9 (9.5)
5. Technical school                36.8 (8.7)
6. Community college               37.3 (8.1)
7. College and above               38.1 (7.1)
  F (p-value)                     6.1 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons            7>1,4,2; 6>2

Occupation
1. Technician                      36.9 (8.4)
2. Government worker               37.3 (7.0)
3. Military personnel             36.0 (10.9)
4. Business                        35.6 (9.6)
5. Service staff                  32.0 (10.2)
6. Farmer                          29.9 (6.8)
7. Factory worker                  35.8 (9.2)
8. Office worker                   38.1 (7.9)
9. Teacher                         38.4 (8.4)
10. Unemployed                    31.3 (11.0)
11. Other/self-employed            36.4 (7.2)
  F (p-value)                     7.4 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons            9,8>5,10,6;
                                   2,1,11,3>6
Type of household
1. Parents and children            36.4 (8.6)
2. Three generations               36.5 (8.3)
3. Multiple families              33.9 (10.9)
  F (p-value)                    11.9 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons               2,1>3

Family relationships
1. Good                            36.6 (8.7)
2. Fair                           31.5 (10.0)
3. Bad                            30.1 (11.1)
  F (p-value)                    41.3 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons               1>2,3

Housing/living
1. Own a house                     36.4 (8.9)
2. Parents' house                  34.9 (8.2)
3. Children's house                33.5 (9.5)
4. Low-rent apartment             33.0 (10.5)
5. Rented apartment                34.3 (9.5)
6. Other                           37.2 (9.1)
  F (p-value)                     4.5 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons                6>4

Income
1. <999                            31.3 (11.1
2. 1000-1999                       34.8 (9.5)
3. 2000-2999                       36.5 (8.6)
4. 3000-3999                       38.2 (7.4)
5. 4000-4999                       38.9 (7.4)
6. >5000                           38.2 (6.2)
  F (p-value)                    17.4 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons          5,4,6>2,1; 3,2>1

Health insurance
1. Fully paid by workplace         36.6 (8.9)
2. Government insurance            36.2 (8.9)
3. Commercial insurance            28.6 (8.1)
4. Self-pay                        29.2 (9.7)
  F (p-value)                    13.0 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons              1,2>4,3

Manner of retirement               36.2 (8.9)
1. Retired at normal age           36.5 (8.7)
2. Early retirement                34.4 (9.3)
3. Late retirement                33.3 (10.1)
4. Others                         33.1 (10.1)
  F (p-value)                     7.5 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparison                  --

Attitude toward retirement         36.2 (8.9)
1. Regulation age okay             36.6 (8.6)
2. Eager to retire                 35.2 (9.1)
3. Reluctant to retire            33.4 (10.1)
4. Others                         35.3 (10.9)
  F (p-value)                     9.7 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons                 --

Adjustment to retirement           26.5 (8.9)
1. Well-adjusted                   36.6 (8.7)
2. Not very well adjusted          34.6 (9.1)
3. Cannot adjust                  30.9 (11.7)
  F (p-value)                    14.2 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons               1,2>3

Temperament (self-report)
1. Introvert                       35.4 (9.4)
2. Intermediate                    35.2 (9.2)
3. Extrovert                       37.2 (8.3)
  F (p-value)                    13.8 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons               3>1,2

Self-regulation of mood
1. Strong                          37.7 (8.0)
2. Medium                          33.9 (9.5)
3. Weak                           28.6 (11.8)
  F (p-value)                    82.7 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons               1>2>3

Smoking status
1. Current smoker                  36.1 (9.0)
2. Never smoked                    36.1 (8.9)
3. Previously smoked              34.2 (10.8)
  F (p-value)                     1.6 (0.196)
  Multiple comparisons                 --

Drinking status                       36.0
1. Current drinker                 36.4 (8.9)
2. Never drinks                    36.1 (8.9)
3. Previous drinker               31.5 (10.8)
  F (p-value)                     4.5 (0.011)
  Multiple comparisons               1,2>3

Regular physical exercise
  Yes                              36.7 (8.5)
  No                              33.8 (10.1)
  t-test (p-value)                6.5 (<0.001)

Regular leisure activities
1. None                            35.8 (9.2)
2. 1-2 types of activities         35.7 (8.9)
3. 3-8 types of activities         37.1 (9.0)
  F (p-value)                     5.0 (0.007)
  Multiple comparisons                 --

Anxiety (SAS score > 50)
  No                               36.6 (8.4)
  Yes                             25.3 (11.1)
  t-test (p-value)               14.4 (<0.001)

Depression (SDS score > 53)
  No                               37.2 (8.0)
  Yes                             24.2 (10.0)
  t-test (p-value)               21.4 (<0.001)

Social support
1. Low (SSRS score <33)           30.3 (10.8)
2. Medium (SSRS score=33-45)       36.8 (8.1)
3. High (SSRS score >45)           39.0 (7.4)
  F (p-value)                    130.1 (<0.001)
  Multiple comparisons               3>2>1

Employment status
  Still working fulltime          33.2 (10.8)
  Retired                          36.2 (8.9)
  t-test (p-value)                -3.4 (0.001)

MUNSH, Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness;
SAS, Self-rating Anxiety Scale; SDS, Self-rating Depression
Scale; SSRS, Social Support Rating Scale

Table 2. Correlation of happiness (MUNSH), social support (SSRS),
depression (SDS), anxiety (SAS), family income, age, and level of
education in 2342 elderly in Xi Cheng district, Beijing
(Spearman's [r.sub.s] [p-value])

                                    Overall            Positive
                                   happiness           attitude

Overall Social Support (SS)      0.30 (< 0.001)     0.26 (< 0.001)
  Objective SS                   0.22 (< 0.001)     0.08 (< 0.001)
  Subjective SS                  0.27 (< 0.001)     0.28 (< 0.001)
  Utilization of SS              0.15 (< 0.001)     0.18 (< 0.001)
Depression scale total score    -0.51 (< 0.001)    -0.34 (< 0.001)
Anxiety scale total score       -0.44 (< 0.001)    -0.30 (< 0.001)
Income                           0.16 (< 0.001)     0.07 ( 0.002)
Age                              0.04 ( 0.070)      0.02 ( 0.311)
Level of education               0.08 (< 0.001)     0.02 ( 0.286)
Happiness subscale scores
  Positive attitude              0.75 (< 0.001)           --
  Negative attitude             -0.65 (< 0.001)           --
  Positive experience            0.83 (< 0.001)           --
  Negative experience           -0.74 (< 0.001)           --

                                    Negative           Positive
                                    attitude          experience

Overall Social Support (SS)     -0.17 (< 0.001)     0.28 (< 0.001)
  Objective SS                  -0.26 (< 0.001)     0.13 (< 0.001)
  Subjective SS                 -0.11 (< 0.001)     0.27 (< 0.001)
  Utilization of SS             -0.04 ( 0.084)      0.17 (< 0.001)
Depression scale total score     0.40 (< 0.001)    -0.45 (< 0.001)
Anxiety scale total score        0.34 (< 0.001)    -0.40 (< 0.001)
Income                          -0.17 (< 0.001)     0.11 (< 0.001)
Age                              0.07 ( 0.001)     -0.00 ( 0.876)
Level of education              -0.07 (< 0.001)     0.06 ( 0.003)
Happiness subscale scores
  Positive attitude             -0.29(< 0.001)      0.58 (< 0.001)
  Negative attitude                    --          -0.36 (< 0.001)
  Positive experience                  --                 --
  Negative experience                  --                 --

                                    Negative
                                   experience

Overall Social Support (SS)     -0.22 (< 0.001)
  Objective SS                  -0.25 (< 0.001)
  Subjective SS                 -0.17 (< 0.001)
  Utilization of SS             -0.09 (< 0.001)
Depression scale total score     0.38 (< 0.001)
Anxiety scale total score        0.37 (< 0.001)
Income                          -0.17 (< 0.001)
Age                             -0.05 ( 0.010)
Level of education              -0.09 (< 0.001)
Happiness subscale scores
  Positive attitude             -0.33 (< 0.001)
  Negative attitude              0.60 (< 0.001)
  Positive experience           -0.46 (< 0.001)
  Negative experience                  --

MUNSH, Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness;
SSRS, Social Support Rating Scale; SDS, Self-rating Depression
Scale; SAS, Self-rating Anxiety Scale

Table 3. Multiple linear regression of the overall happiness
score from the MUNSH scale of 2242 elderly persons in Xi Cheng
District, Beijing (independent variables sorted in order of
importance) (a)

Variable                                  P      S.E of [beta]

SDS total score (continuous)            -0.328       0.020
SAS total score (continuous)            -0.205       0.024
SSRS total score (continuous)            0.194       0.025
Personal monthly income (8 levels)       0.764       0.182
Poor family relationships (3 levels)    -1.707       0.415
Poor self-regulation of mood
  (3 levels)                            -1.011       0.278
Regular exercise                         1.214       0.363
Retired at regulation age                0.999       0.405
Number of leisure activities
  (3 levels)                             0.656       0.317
Currently married                       -0.360       0.467
Female gender                            0.117       0.307
Age (continuous)                         0.012       0.031
Educational level (8 levels)            -0.020       0.105

                                        standardized
Variable                                    Beta          t        p

SDS total score (continuous)               -0.355      -16.61    <0.001
SAS total score (continuous)               -0.183       -8.64    <0.001
SSRS total score (continuous)               0.143        7.73    <0.001
Personal monthly income (8 levels)          0.078        4.21    <0.001
Poor family relationships (3 levels)       -0.071       -4.12    <0.001
Poor self-regulation of mood
  (3 levels)                               -0.064       -3.63    <0.001
Regular exercise                            0.056        3.34     0.001
Retired at regulation age                   0.041        2.47     0.014
Number of leisure activities
  (3 levels)                                0.035        2.07     0.039
Currently married                          -0.014       -0.77     0.441
Female gender                               0.007        0.38     0.702
Age (continuous)                            0.006        0.38     0.706
Educational level (8 levels)               -0.003       -0.19     0.851

Variable                                  95% CI of [beta]

SDS total score (continuous)             -0.367     -0.289
SAS total score (continuous)             -0.251     -0.158
SSRS total score (continuous)             0.145      0.243
Personal monthly income (8 levels)        0.408      1.121
Poor family relationships (3 levels)     -2.520     -0.893
Poor self-regulation of mood
  (3 levels)                             -1.557     -0.465
Regular exercise                          0.502      1.926
Retired at regulation age                 0.204      1.79
Number of leisure activities
  (3 levels)                              0.034      1.278
Currently married                        -1.275      0.556
Female gender                            -0.484      0.718
Age (continuous)                         -0.049      0.072
Educational level (8 levels)             -0.227      0.187

MUNSH, Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness;
S.E., standard error; CI, confidence interval; SSRS, Social
Support Rating Scale; SAS, Self-rating Anxiety Scale; SDS,
Self-rating Depression Scale

(a) See statistical methods section for description of the
analytic methods. Adjusted [R.sup.2] for model=0.383

Table 4. Multiple linear regression of the four subscale scores
from the MUNSH scale of 2242 elderly persons in Xi Cheng
District, Beijing (independent variables sorted in order of
importance) (a)

Variable                                    P      S.E of P

POSITIVE ATTITUDE SUBSCALE (b)
SSRS total score (continuous)             0.071      0.009
SDS total score (continuous)             -0.049      0.007
Willing to retire at official age         0.678      0.137
SAS total score (continuous)             -0.040      0.009
Number of leisure activities
  (3 levels)                              0.423      0.115
Poor self-regulation of mood
  (3 levels)                             -0.370      0.101

NEGATIVE ATTITUDE SUBSCALE (c)
SDS total score (continuous)              0.073      0.006
SAS total score (continuous)              0.045      0.007
Personal monthly income (8 levels)       -0.251      0.052
Poor family relationships
  (3 levels)                              0.412      0.116
Parents and children family
  household                              -0.290      0.085
Owns own home                            -0.324      0.115
Regular exercise                         -0.281      0.103
Has government medical insurance         -0.302      0.145
Age (continuous)                         -0.018      0.009

POSITIVE EXPERIENCE SUBSCALE (d)
SDS total score (continuous)             -0.103      0.008
SSRS total score (continuous)             0.089      0.011
SAS total score (continuous)             -0.063      0.010
Poorly adjusted to retirement
  (3 levels)                             -0.527      0.118
Poor family relationships
  (3 levels)                             -0.619      0.176
Currently married                        -0.458      0.198
Regular exercise                          0.341      0.154
Retired at regulation age                 0.342      0.172

NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE SUBSCALE (e)
SDS total score (continuous)              0.098      0.007
SAS total score (continuous)              0.055      0.009
Educational level (8 levels)             -0.323      0.067
Regular exercise                         -0.607      0.133
Poor family relationships
  (3 levels)                              0.540      0.150
SSRS total score (continuous)            -0.032      0.009
Owns own home                            -0.429      0.148
Parents and children family
  household                              -0.298      0.110
Has government medical insurance         -0.491      0.187
Level of extroversion (3 levels)          0.165      0.074

                                       standardized
Variable                                   Beta          t        p

POSITIVE ATTITUDE SUBSCALE (b)
SSRS total score (continuous)              0.168        7.78   <0.001
SDS total score (continuous)              -0.169       -6.78   <0.001
Willing to retire at official age          0.097        4.95   <0.001
SAS total score (continuous)              -0.113       -4.60   <0.001
Number of leisure activities
  (3 levels)                               0.072        3.67   <0.001
Poor self-regulation of mood
  (3 levels)                              -0.075       -3.65   <0.001

NEGATIVE ATTITUDE SUBSCALE (c)
SDS total score (continuous)               0.309       13.21   <0.001
SAS total score (continuous)               0.158        6.85   <0.001
Personal monthly income (8 levels)        -0.099       -4.85   <0.001
Poor family relationships
  (3 levels)                               0.067        3.54   <0.001
Parents and children family
  household                               -0.063       -3.41    0.001
Owns own home                             -0.053       -2.82    0.005
Regular exercise                          -0.051       -2.73    0.006
Has government medical insurance          -0.039       -2.09    0.037
Age (continuous)                          -0.038       -2.08    0.038

POSITIVE EXPERIENCE SUBSCALE (d)
SDS total score (continuous)              -0.284      -12.27   <0.001
SSRS total score (continuous)              0.168        8.38   <0.001
SAS total score (continuous)              -0.143       -6.27   <0.001
Poorly adjusted to retirement
  (3 levels)                              -0.085       -4.46   <0.001
Poor family relationships
  (3 levels)                              -0.065       -3.52   <0.001
Currently married                         -0.044       -2.31    0.021
Regular exercise                           0.040        2.21    0.027
Retired at regulation age                  0.036        1.99    0.047

NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE SUBSCALE (e)
SDS total score (continuous)               0.316       13.65   <0.001
SAS total score (continuous)               0.146        6.43   <0.001
Educational level (8 levels)              -0.098       -4.83   <0.001
Regular exercise                          -0.084       -4.58   <0.001
Poor family relationships
  (3 levels)                               0.067        3.60   <0.001
SSRS total score (continuous)             -0.071       -3.52   <0.001
Owns own home                             -0.053       -2.89    0.004
Parents and children family
  household                               -0.050       -2.72    0.007
Has government medical insurance          -0.049       -2.63    0.009
Level of extroversion (3 levels)           0.042        2.24    0.025

Variable                                 95% CI of P

POSITIVE ATTITUDE SUBSCALE (b)
SSRS total score (continuous)           0.053     0.089
SDS total score (continuous)           -0.063    -0.035
Willing to retire at official age       0.409     0.946
SAS total score (continuous)           -0.056    -0.023
Number of leisure activities
  (3 levels)                            0.197     0.650
Poor self-regulation of mood
  (3 levels)                           -0.568    -0.171

NEGATIVE ATTITUDE SUBSCALE (c)
SDS total score (continuous)            0.062     0.084
SAS total score (continuous)            0.032     0.058
Personal monthly income (8 levels)     -0.353    -0.150
Poor family relationships
  (3 levels)                            0.184     0.641
Parents and children family
  household                            -0.456    -0.123
Owns own home                          -0.549    -0.098
Regular exercise                       -0.483    -0.079
Has government medical insurance       -0.586    -0.018
Age (continuous)                       -0.035    -0.001

POSITIVE EXPERIENCE SUBSCALE (d)
SDS total score (continuous)           -0.119    -0.086
SSRS total score (continuous)           0.068     0.110
SAS total score (continuous)           -0.083    -0.043
Poorly adjusted to retirement
  (3 levels)                           -0.758    -0.295
Poor family relationships
  (3 levels)                           -0.964    -0.274
Currently married                      -0.846    -0.069
Regular exercise                        0.039     0.644
Retired at regulation age               0.005     0.679

NEGATIVE EXPERIENCE SUBSCALE (e)
SDS total score (continuous)            0.084     0.112
SAS total score (continuous)            0.038     0.072
Educational level (8 levels)           -0.455    -0.192
Regular exercise                       -0.868    -0.347
Poor family relationships
  (3 levels)                            0.246     0.835
SSRS total score (continuous)          -0.050    -0.014
Owns own home                          -0.719    -0.138
Parents and children family
  household                            -0.513    -0.083
Has government medical insurance       -0.857    -0.125
Level of extroversion (3 levels)        0.021     0.310

MMUNSH, Memorial University of Newfoundland Scale of Happiness;
S.E., standard error; CI, confidence interval; SSRS, Social
Support Rating Scale; SAS, Self-rating Anxiety Scale; SDS,
Self-rating Depression Scale

(a) See Statistical methods section for description of the
analytic methods. Only statistically significant variables are
listed. (b) Adjusted [R.sup.2] for model=0.160; (c) Adjusted
[R.sup.2] for model=0.254; (d) Adjusted [R.sup.2] for
model=0.274; (e) Adjusted [R.sup.2] for model=0.273
COPYRIGHT 2012 Shanghai Mental Health Center
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Original article; China
Author:Li, Shuo; Xie, Zhaohui; Shao, Jun; Xiao, Cunli; Tian, Liang; Zhao, Rongfeng; Gong, Jiakai; Han, Jinx
Publication:Shanghai Archives of Psychiatry
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9CHIN
Date:Dec 1, 2012
Words:9589
Previous Article:Relationship between brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene C270T polymorphisms and the psychotic symptoms and cognitive functioning of patients with...
Next Article:Is pharmacological intervention necessary in prodromal schizophrenia?
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters