2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.047
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cross-national variation of gender differences in adolescent subjective health in Europe and North America

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

36
176
2
13

Year Published

2008
2008
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 185 publications
(227 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
36
176
2
13
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, studies have consistently shown that infant mortality rates (IMR) vary significantly by welfare regime type (Bambra, 2006a;Chung & Muntaner, 2007;Coburn, 2004;Navarro et al, 2006), with rates lowest in the Scandinavian countries and highest in the Southern regimes. These systematic differences in health outcomes may be explained by the relative roles of the state, the family and the market in welfare provision (EspingAndersen, 1990) with the more highly decommodifying welfare states (Scandinavian) -through income redistribution (Dahl, Elstad, Hofoss, & Martin-Mollard, 2006;Subramanian & Kawachi, 2006b;Torsheim, Currie, Boyce, & Samdal, 2006b;Torsheim et al, 2006a) and low unemployment (Ferrie, Shipley, Stansfeld, & Marmot, 2002;Keefe et al, 2002;Lahelma, 1992;Martikainen & Valkonen, 1996) -providing better protection against the health effects of a low market (socio-economic) position.…”
Section: Health Differences Between Countries and Welfare State Regimesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, studies have consistently shown that infant mortality rates (IMR) vary significantly by welfare regime type (Bambra, 2006a;Chung & Muntaner, 2007;Coburn, 2004;Navarro et al, 2006), with rates lowest in the Scandinavian countries and highest in the Southern regimes. These systematic differences in health outcomes may be explained by the relative roles of the state, the family and the market in welfare provision (EspingAndersen, 1990) with the more highly decommodifying welfare states (Scandinavian) -through income redistribution (Dahl, Elstad, Hofoss, & Martin-Mollard, 2006;Subramanian & Kawachi, 2006b;Torsheim, Currie, Boyce, & Samdal, 2006b;Torsheim et al, 2006a) and low unemployment (Ferrie, Shipley, Stansfeld, & Marmot, 2002;Keefe et al, 2002;Lahelma, 1992;Martikainen & Valkonen, 1996) -providing better protection against the health effects of a low market (socio-economic) position.…”
Section: Health Differences Between Countries and Welfare State Regimesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The five options were 'almost every day', 'more than once a week', 'almost every week', 'almost every month' and 'rarely or never'. Qualitative validations of the scale have suggested that each negative complaint impacts daily life and wellbeing [28,34]. The responses were recoded to the following categories: (1) 'yes', if the answers were 'almost every day', 'more than once a week' and 'almost every week'; (2) 'no', if the answers were 'almost every month', 'rarely or never'.…”
Section: Instrumentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Children in lone-parent families and stepfamilies are at a disadvantage, in cognitive, emotional and behavioural terms, compared with those in two-parent families [12,25]. Previous findings indicated to mechanisms that connected mental health to the economic status of an adolescent [9,28]. Poor selfrated mental health and multiple health complaints are more common in lower socio-economic groups [29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…19 Functional somatic symptoms often differ between women and men; 18 in childhood the levels are similar for girls and boys, but from early adolescence onwards, girls and women generally report higher levels than boys and men. 21,22 The aim of this study was to analyse the potential long-term associations between youth unemployment and functional somatic symptoms in adulthood, after controlling for functional somatic symptoms in youth, socioeconomic background, education and later adult unemployment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%