print

Correlational findings

Study Bonikowska et al. (2013): study CA 2009 /2

Public:
15+aged, general public, Canada, 2009-2011
Survey name:
CCHS
Sample:
Respondents:
N = 63000
Non Response:
Assessment:
Interview: computer assisted (CAPI)
Half of the respondents were interviewed by computer-assisted telephone, the other half by computer-assisted personal interview.

Correlate

Authors's label
Self-perceived health
Our Classification
Operationalization
0 Poor
1 Fair
2 Good
4 Very good (reference)
5 Excellent

Observed Relation with Happiness

Happiness Measure Statistics Elaboration / Remarks O-SLW-c-sq-n-11-eb b = - Poor health (vs. very good)

       b      p<
2009 -2.55   .001
2010 -2.91   .001
2011 -2.72   .001
O-SLW-c-sq-n-11-eb b = - Fair health (vs. very good)

       b      p<
2009 -1.39   .001
2010 -1.39   .001
2011 -1.39   .001
O-SLW-c-sq-n-11-eb b = - Good health (vs. very good)

       b      p<
2009  -.52   .001
2010  -.57   .001
2011  -.61   .001

b's controlled for:
- sex
- age
- marital status
- education
- immigrant
- employment status
- household income
- household size
- homeownership
- urban area/rural
- geographical region
O-SLW-c-sq-n-11-eb b = + p < .001 Excellent health (vs. very good)

       b      p<
2009  +.51   .001
2010  +.45   .001
2011  +.48   .001

b's controlled for:
- sex
- age
- marital status
- education
- immigrant
- employment status
- household income
- household size
- homeownership
- urban area/rural
- geographical region