Does who you live with matter for your health? The influence of partners’ socioeconomic characteristics on self-rated health in Norway

Abstract

Aims:

Studies of the association between self-rated health and persons’ income and education have almost invariably shown that people with higher education and incomes report better health. Less is known of the influence of household members’ socioeconomic characteristics on individuals’ health. This study thus aimed to assess the extent to which the socioeconomic characteristics of partners may contribute to explaining the variation in the respondents’ self-rated health (SRH).

Methods:

Using an observational design, we analysed cross-sectional Norwegian survey data on SRH (2015 and 2019), linked to register data on education and income for respondents (N = 7082) and their opposite-sex coresident spouse or partner. We employed logistic regression models to assess the associations between respondents’ SRH and the relative income and education of their partner. Average marginal effects were calculated to enable cross-model comparisons.

Results:

Net of individual characteristics, having a higher-educated partner was positively associated with SRH for both male (OR = 1.56) and female (OR = 1.36) respondents. Having a partner with an above median income (by age and sex) was positively associated with SRH for female (OR = 1.29) respondents only. For education, the positive SRH associations were roughly similar for respondents and partners. For income, the associations were more pronounced for respondents than partners.

Conclusions:

Our findings suggest that health is affected by the resources (or lack thereof) in one’s immediate networks. To reduce social inequalities in health, health personnel might customise interactions to account for household resources. Such knowledge could also be used in health-promoting activities to enhance participation and health competency.

Keywords

Education family health status income Norway partner self-assessed sex socioeconomic

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Goldblatt

Castedo

Allen

, et al., Rapid review of inequalities in health and wellbeing in Norway since 2014. London: Institute of Health Equity, 2023.

Dahl

Bergsli

van der Wel

. Review of social inequalities in health in Norway. Oslo: Oslo and Akershus College, 2014.

Townsend

Davidson

. Inequalities in health: the Black Report. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1982.

Mackenbach

Cavelaars

AEJM

Kunst

. Socioeconomic inequalities in morbidity and mortality in western Europe. The EU Working Group on Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health. Lancet 1997;349:1655–9.

Degerlund Maldi

San Sebastian

Gustafsson

, et al. Widespread and widely widening? Examining absolute socioeconomic health inequalities in northern Sweden across twelve health indicators. Int J Equity Health 2019;18:197.

Jacquet

Robert

Chauvin

, et al. Social inequalities in health and mental health in France. The results of a 2010 population-based survey in Paris Metropolitan Area. PLoS One 2018;13:e0203676.

Moor

Spallek

Richter

. Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in self-rated health: a systematic review of the relative contribution of material, psychosocial and behavioural factors. J Epidemiol Community Health 2017;71:565–75.

Enroth

Fors

. Trends in the social class inequalities in disability and self-rated health: repeated cross-sectional surveys from Finland and Sweden 2001–2018. Int J Public Health 2021;66:645513.

Monden

. Do Measured and unmeasured family factors bias the association between education and self-assessed health? Soc Indic Res 2010;98:321–36.

10.

Monden

van Lenthe

Dirk

Graaf

, et al. Partner’s and own education: does who you live with matter for self-assessed health, smoking and excessive alcohol consumption? Soc Sci Med 2003;57:1901–12.

11.

Nilsen

Bjørngaard

Ernstsen

, et al. Education-based health inequalities in 18,000 Norwegian couples: the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT). BMC Public Health 2012;12:998.

12.

Brown

Hummer

Hayward

. The importance of spousal education for the self-rated health of married adults in the United States. Popul Res Policy Rev 2014;33:127–51.

13.

Gumà

Spijker

. Until death do us part. The influence of own and partner’s socioeconomic status on the health of spanish middle-aged population. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2020;17:4644.

14.

Huijts

Monden

CWS

Kraaykamp

. Education, educational heterogamy, and self-assessed health in Europe: a multilevel study of spousal effects in 29 European countries. Eur Socio Rev 2010;26:261–76.

15.

Lamu

Chen

Olsen

. Amplified disparities: the association between spousal education and own health. Soc Sci Med 2023;323:115832.

16.

Torssander

Moustgaard

Peltonen

, et al. Partner resources and incidence and survival in two major causes of death. SSM Popul Health 2018;4:271–9.

17.

Kilpi

Martikainen

Konttinen

, et al. The spillover influence of partner’s education on myocardial infarction incidence and survival. Epidemiology 2018;29:237–45.

18.

Torssander

Erikson

. Marital partner and mortality: the effects of the social positions of both spouses. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009;63:992–8.

19.

Syse

Lyngstad

. In sickness and in health: the role of marital partners in cancer survival. SSM Popul Health 2017;3:99–110.

20.

Kravdal Ø. A broader perspective on education and mortality: are we influenced by other people’s education? Soc Sci Med 2008;66:620–36.

21.

Skalická

Kunst

. Effects of spouses’ socioeconomic characteristics on mortality among men and women in a Norwegian longitudinal study. Soc Sci Med 2008;66:2035–47.

22.

Syse

Artamonova

Thomas

, et al. Do characteristics of family members influence older persons’ transition to long-term healthcare services? BMC Health Serv Res 2022;22:362.

23.

Molven

Ferkis

. Healthcare, welfare and law: health legislation as a mirror of the Norwegian welfare state. Oslo: Gyldendal, 2011.

24.

Esping-Andersen

. ‘The household economy.’ In: Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 47–72.

25.

Elder

Jr . The life course paradigm: social change and individual development. In: Moen

Elder

Lüscher

(eds) Examining lives in context: perspectives on the ecology of human development. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1995, pp. 101–39.

26.

Statistics Norway. This is Norway 2021, https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/folketall/artikler/this-is-norway-2021 (2021, accessed 5 May 2023).

27.

Statistics Norway. Health, care and social relations, survey on living conditions, 2019, https://www.ssb.no/en/helse/statistikker/helseforhold/hvert-3-aar/2020-06-25 (2020, accessed 5 May 2023).

28.

Statistics Norway. Health, care and social relations survey on living conditions, 2015, https://www.ssb.no/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/artikler-og-publikasjoner/levekarsundersokelsen-om-helse-2015 (accessed 5 May 2023).

29.

Eurostat. European health interview survey, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-health-interview-survey (2022, accessed 9 September 2022).

30.

Idler

Benyamini

. Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies. J Health Soc Behav 1997;38:21–37.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB