Sociodemographic characteristics
Table 1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics in comparison to the WEMWBS ratings. Of the 1404 respondents, 63.2% were male. 83% of subjects were with undergraduate degrees or above. The mean score for WEMWBS was 42.5 (standard deviation, SD 11.1), and the median was 42. For men, the mean change of well-being score was 1.7 points, which is higher than that of women. Thus, elucidating those female participants may suffer from worse mental health. Cronbach's alpha for WEMWBS was 0.88 (95% CI [0.85; 0.90]), which indicates an excellent internal consistency. A significant association was found between WEMWBS scores and occupation. Variabilities were more prominent in age groups 16-19 and older than 50 years, which indicates that those age groups may face psychological instability.
Table 1
Participant characteristics and association with wellbeing scores
Variables
|
Categories
|
n
|
Mean (sd)
|
P-value*
|
Age group
|
16–19
|
50 (3.6%)
|
42.74 (12.78)
|
0.087
|
20–29
|
767 (54.6%)
|
42.06 (10.85)
|
30–39
|
447 (31.8%)
|
42.24 (10.35)
|
40–49
|
110 (7.8%)
|
45.11 (10.89)
|
>=50
|
30 (2.1%)
|
44.06 (12.65)
|
Gender*
|
Male
|
888 (63.2%)
|
43.04 (10.82)
|
0.007
|
Female
|
516 (36.8%)
|
41.37 (11.22)
|
Marital Status
|
Married
|
713 (50.8%)
|
42.29 (10.97)
|
0.799
|
Never-Married
|
671 (47.8)
|
42.60 (10.91)
|
Others
|
20 (1.4%)
|
41.35 (12.63)
|
Education
|
Schooling 6–12 years
|
232 (16.5%)
|
42.03 (11.18)
|
0.777
|
Undergraduate
|
576 (41.0%)
|
42.37 (10.83)
|
Graduate
|
596 (42.5%)
|
42.63 (11.18)
|
Occupation
|
Business
|
79 (5.6%)
|
39.53 (11.42)
|
< 0.001
|
Government
|
69 (4.9%)
|
45.14 (11.79)
|
Healthcare
|
356 (25.4%)
|
43.62 (09.99)
|
Housewife/ Unemployed
|
129 (9.2%)
|
39.57 (10.40)
|
Non-government
|
353 (25.1%)
|
42.77 (11.66)
|
Student
|
418 (29.80)
|
42.10 (11.31)
|
Working Condition
|
Not employed
|
758 (54.0%)
|
41.94 (11.12)
|
0.201
|
Work from home
|
422 (30.1%)
|
42.93 (11.09)
|
Work from both home and Outside
|
224 (15.9%)
|
43.13 (11.01)
|
Current location
of living*
|
City
|
1118 (79.1%)
|
42.68 (11.09)
|
0.0961
|
Village
|
286 (20.9%)
|
41.45 (11.12)
|
*p-value was calculated from ANOVA, and the p-values for gender and current location of living were calculated from t-test.
|
The well-being score of 51.9% of the participants fell in the range of 14-42 representing low levels of mental well-being. 40.2% of the participants scored 43-59 which is middle-range well-being, and the remaining 7.8% were in the range 60-70 suggesting good mental health. From the results, it is evident global stress has had spillover effects on individuals' mental condition.
The Gender Gap in Mental well-being
Depression seemed to be heavily skewed towards women, raising agonizing concerns. For instance, 57.2% of female participants were in poor mental health (i.e. WEMWBS score ≤ 42), whereas for males it was at 48.9%.
Patterns of well-being by Age and occupational groups
Figure 1 shows a day-to-day comparison of well-being scores at different categories of sociodemographic factors. As days passed the scores for both men and women were seen to increase. The scores for age ≥ 50 had higher variability when compared to other age groups, thereby demonstrating that the elderly population is likely to face far more mental strain. Variations were also observed in the ‘divorced/separated people’ and ‘living in the village’ categories. The participants who were housewives or unemployed fell under the non-working group and were seen to have low WEMWBS scores, but the results remained constant. The participants who worked at home and worked both at home and outside were susceptible to inconsistent data, in other words, the data was highly variable.
Multivariable Linear Regression Models
Table 2 presents the results from multivariable linear regression models. The results present the slope estimate, 95% confidence interval of the slope, and the corresponding p-value. We applied three models. The first model used all the data, and the next two models were gender-separated, i.e women have one model and men have the other. This was done to eliminate confounding bias. From Model 1 it appears that gender and occupational groups have a significant effect on mental well-being scores. When compared to women, men have significantly higher well-being scores with a slope of 1.79 (95% CI = 0.5 to 3.1). The participants who were involved in business had worse mental health than government employees (decreased by 5.87 units, p=0.01), health care workers (by 4.98, p=<0.001), and employees of private companies (by 3.31, p=0.02). Model 2 provides similar results as the data is only about men. Most women are not in the working group, and therefore the occupational factor them. Interestingly, the unmarried females appear to have higher well-being scores than the married women (by 3.31, p=0.01).
Table 2
Results from multivariable linear regression model with wellbeing score as outcome. (The positive slope means better mental wellbeing)
Variable
|
Categories
|
Model 1 (All data)*
|
Model 2 (Male data)*
|
Model 3 (Female data)*
|
Age
|
16–19
|
-0.71, (-6.1, 4.7), 0.80
|
3.37, (-3.3, 10.1), 0.32
|
-5.98, (-15.4, 3.5), 0.22
|
20–29
|
-1.56, (-5.8, 2.7), 0.48
|
1.66, (-3.7, 7.1), 0.55
|
-5.12, (-12.4, 2.2), 0.17
|
30–39
|
-1.24, (-4.4, 2.9), 0.56
|
0.74, (-4.4, 5.9), 0.78
|
-3.64, (-10.9, 3.6), 0.32
|
40–49
|
1.74, (-2.7, 6.2), 0.45
|
3.81, (-1.7, 9.3), 0.17
|
-0.84, (-8.9, 7.2), 0.84
|
>=50
|
Reference
|
Gender
|
Male
|
1.79, (0.5, 3.1), 0.01
|
-
|
-
|
Female
|
Reference
|
Occupation
|
Government
|
5.86, (2.2, 9.5), 0.01
|
7.88, (3.6, 12.1), < 0.001
|
-0.49, (-9.7, 8.8), 0.91
|
Healthcare
|
4.98, (2.2, 7.8), < 0.001
|
4.17, (1.0, 7.3), 0.01
|
3.24, (-4.9, 11.4), 0.44
|
Housewife/
Unemployed
|
1.56, (-1.7, 4.8), 0.34
|
3.82, (-0.6, 8.3), 0.09
|
-2.00, (-10.3, 6.3), 0.64
|
Private
|
3.31, (0.6, 6.0), 0.02
|
3.38, (0.5, 6.3), 0.02
|
0.98, (-7.4, 9.3), 0.82
|
Student
|
2.97, (0.1, 5.9), 0.04
|
4.10, (0.8, 7.4), 0.01
|
-1.40, (-9.8, 7.0), 0.74
|
Business
|
Reference
|
Working
condition
|
Not-working
|
-0.84, (-2.2, 0.5), 0.22
|
-1.29, (-3.0, 0.4), 0.14
|
-0.21, (-2.4, 1.9), 0. 85
|
Both home and outside
|
-0.67, (-2.5, 1.2), 0.48
|
-0.41, (-2.7, 1.8), 0.72
|
-1.53, (-4.7, 1.7), 0.35
|
Work from home
|
Reference
|
Marital status
|
Never married
|
1.13, (-0.4, 2.7), 0.15
|
-0.63, (-2.8, 1.5), 0.56
|
3.31, (1.0, 5.7), 0.01
|
Divorced/ Separated
|
-0.02, (-5.0, 4.9), 0.99
|
-7.44, (-17.5, 2.7), 0.15
|
2.30, (-3.4, 7.9), 0.42
|
Married
|
Reference
|
Current living location
|
Staying at Village
|
-1.02, (-2.5, 0.5), 0.19
|
-1.10, (-2.9, 0.7), 0.22
|
-1.61, (-4.8, 1.5), 0.32
|
Staying at City
|
Reference
|
* The values present slope (95% confidence interval) and p-value. |