07ÀÓ½ÂÁö50-61

Similar documents

07½Å¿µÀü


한국성인에서초기황반변성질환과 연관된위험요인연구



저작자표시 - 비영리 - 변경금지 2.0 대한민국 이용자는아래의조건을따르는경우에한하여자유롭게 이저작물을복제, 배포, 전송, 전시, 공연및방송할수있습니다. 다음과같은조건을따라야합니다 : 저작자표시. 귀하는원저작자를표시하여야합니다. 비영리. 귀하는이저작물을영리목적으로이용할

서론 34 2

PHI Report 시민건강이슈 Ⅱ 모두가건강한사회를만들어가는시민건강증진연구소 People's Health Institute

Àå¾Ö¿Í°í¿ë ³»Áö

hwp


,......

사회동향1-최종

13.12 ①초점

< FB4EBB1B8BDC320BAB8B0C7BAB9C1F6C5EBB0E8BFACBAB820B9DFB0A320BFACB1B85FBEF6B1E2BAB92E687770>

사회동향-내지간지수정

1..

歯4차학술대회원고(황수경이상호).PDF

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2019, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp DOI: 3 * Effects of 9th

Kor. J. Aesthet. Cosmetol., 라이프스타일은 개인 생활에 있어 심리적 문화적 사회적 모든 측면의 생활방식과 차이 전체를 말한다. 이러한 라이프스 타일은 사람의 내재된 가치관이나 욕구, 행동 변화를 파악하여 소비행동과 심리를 추측할 수 있고, 개인의

서론


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Research Trend

사회동향1-2장

Vol.259 C O N T E N T S M O N T H L Y P U B L I C F I N A N C E F O R U M

노인정신의학회보14-1호

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp DOI: * A Study on the Pe

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: * The


<28BCF6BDC D B0E6B1E2B5B520C1F6BFAABAB020BFA9BCBAC0CFC0DAB8AE20C1A4C3A520C3DFC1F8C0FCB7AB5FC3D6C1BE E E687770>

<31342EBCBAC7FDBFB52E687770>

<C7D1B1B9B1B3C0B0B0B3B9DFBFF85FC7D1B1B9B1B3C0B05F3430B1C733C8A35FC5EBC7D5BABB28C3D6C1BE292DC7A5C1F6C6F7C7D42E687770>

<5B31362E30332E31315D20C5EBC7D5B0C7B0ADC1F5C1F8BBE7BEF720BEC8B3BB2DB1DDBFAC2E687770>

0121사회동향1장

(Exposure) Exposure (Exposure Assesment) EMF Unknown to mechanism Health Effect (Effect) Unknown to mechanism Behavior pattern (Micro- Environment) Re

Treatment and Role of Hormaonal Replaement Therapy

歯1.PDF

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp DOI: * Strenghening the Cap

,,,.,,,, (, 2013).,.,, (,, 2011). (, 2007;, 2008), (, 2005;,, 2007).,, (,, 2010;, 2010), (2012),,,.. (, 2011:,, 2012). (2007) 26%., (,,, 2011;, 2006;

0121사회동향1장

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp DOI: : Researc

230 한국교육학연구 제20권 제3호 I. 서 론 청소년의 언어가 거칠어지고 있다. 개ㅅㄲ, ㅆㅂ놈(년), 미친ㅆㄲ, 닥쳐, 엠창, 뒤져 등과 같은 말은 주위에서 쉽게 들을 수 있다. 말과 글이 점차 된소리나 거센소리로 바뀌고, 외 국어 남용과 사이버 문화의 익명성 등

012임수진

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp DOI: NCS : G * The Analy

<C0CEBCE2BFEB5FBFACB1B85F D32322D3528BAAFBCF6C1A4295F FBCF6C1A42E687770>

사회동향1-2장

54 한국교육문제연구제 27 권 2 호, I. 1.,,,,,,, (, 1998). 14.2% 16.2% (, ), OECD (, ) % (, )., 2, 3. 3

44-3대지.08류주현c

노동경제논집 38권 3호 (전체).hwp

<C3D6C1BEBFCFBCBA2DBDC4C7B0C0AFC5EBC7D0C8B8C1F D31C8A3292E687770>

<C1B6BBE7BFACB1B D303428B1E8BEF0BEC B8F1C2F7292E687770>

590호(01-11)

<31372DB9CCB7A1C1F6C7E22E687770>

전립선암발생률추정과관련요인분석 : The Korean Cancer Prevention Study-II (KCPS-II)

Analyses the Contents of Points per a Game and the Difference among Weight Categories after the Revision of Greco-Roman Style Wrestling Rules Han-bong

untitled

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: * A Study on Teache

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

07½Å¿µÀü

141(26) () ( ( ) () () () ) 2) 1932 ()()3) 2 1) ( ) ( ) () () () 4) ( ) 5) 6) ) ) ( ) () 42 () )

232 도시행정학보 제25집 제4호 I. 서 론 1. 연구의 배경 및 목적 사회가 다원화될수록 다양성과 복합성의 요소는 증가하게 된다. 도시의 발달은 사회의 다원 화와 밀접하게 관련되어 있기 때문에 현대화된 도시는 경제, 사회, 정치 등이 복합적으로 연 계되어 있어 특

03-서연옥.hwp

지난 2009년 11월 애플의 아이폰 출시로 대중화에 접어든 국내 스마트폰의 역사는 4년 만에 ‘1인 1스마트폰 시대’를 눈앞에 두면서 모바일 최강국의 꿈을 실현해 가고 있다

Lumbar spine

hwp

A study on the sports educational zeal through the qualitative network analysis: Focusing on mothers of student athletes Byung-Goo Lee & Han-Joo Lee*

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA


歯14.양돈규.hwp

Abstract Background : Most hospitalized children will experience physical pain as well as psychological distress. Painful procedure can increase anxie

04_이근원_21~27.hwp

<5BB0F8B0F8BFECC6ED5D20C3D6C1BEBAB8B0EDBCAD5F BFCF292E687770>

,,,,,,, ,, 2 3,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (2001) 2

大学4年生の正社員内定要因に関する実証分析

<BFACB1B85F D333528C0CCC3B6BCB1295FC3D6C1BEC8AEC1A45FC0CEBCE2BFEB E687770>

03-배화옥

인적자원개발정책 협력망 <차 례> I. 문제 제기 II. 우리나라 고령화의 특징과 문제점 1. 고령화의 특징 (1) 우리나라 인구 10명중 1명이 노인 (2) 농어촌 지역의 초고령사회화 (3) 노인인구의 유년인구 추월(2016년) (4) 생산가능인구 7.3명이 노인 1

ÀÌÁÖÈñ.hwp

인문사회과학기술융합학회

. 45 1,258 ( 601, 657; 1,111, 147). Cronbach α=.67.95, 95.1%, Kappa.95.,,,,,,.,...,.,,,,.,,,,,.. :,, ( )

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2018, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp DOI: 3 * The Effect of H

달생산이 초산모 분만시간에 미치는 영향 Ⅰ. 서 론 Ⅱ. 연구대상 및 방법 達 은 23) 의 丹 溪 에 최초로 기 재된 처방으로, 에 복용하면 한 다하여 난산의 예방과 및, 등에 널리 활용되어 왔다. 達 은 이 毒 하고 는 甘 苦 하여 氣, 氣 寬,, 結 의 효능이 있

13.11 ①초점

DBPIA-NURIMEDIA

WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성 ( 황수경 ) ꌙ 127 노동정책연구 제 4 권제 2 호 pp.127~148 c 한국노동연구원 WHO 의새로운국제장애분류 (ICF) 에대한이해와기능적장애개념의필요성황수경 *, (disabi

<BFCFBCBA30362DC0B1BFECC3B62E687770>

27 2, 1-16, * **,,,,. KS,,,., PC,.,,.,,. :,,, : 2009/08/12 : 2009/09/03 : 2009/09/30 * ** ( :

09±è⿱73-83

부속

<30382EC0CCBDC2B1E62E687770>

레이아웃 1

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp DOI: A Study on the Opti

YI Ggodme : The Lives and Diseases of Females during the Latter Half of the Joseon Dynasty as Reconstructed with Cases in Yeoksi Manpil (Stray Notes w


Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp DOI: * Experiences of Af

<31342DC0CCBFEBBDC42E687770>

<313120B9DABFB5B1B82E687770>

Journal of Educational Innovation Research 2017, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp DOI: (NCS) Method of Con

:,,.,. 456, 253 ( 89, 164 ), 203 ( 44, 159 ). Cronbach α= ,.,,..,,,.,. :,, ( )

Transcription:

Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health January 010, Vol. 4, No. 1, 5061 doi: 10.961/jpmph.010.4.1.50 Socioeconomic Inequity in SelfRated Health Status and Contribution of Health Behavioral Factors in Korea Minkyung Kim 1, Woojin Chung 1,, Seungji Lim 1,, Soojin Yoon 1, Jakyoung Lee 1, Eunkyung Kim 1, Lanju Ko 1 1 Graduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University, Institute of Health Services Research, Yonsei University Objectives: The study is investigated socioeconomic variations in selfrated health status and contribution of health behavioral factors in Korea. Methods: A nationally representative sample (,800 men and,0 women aged 064 years) from the 005 Korea National Health and Nutrition Surveys was analyzed using logistic regression. Results: Selfrated health was lower among lower socioeconomic groups compared with higher socioeconomic groups, with gender being irrelevant. This association was attenuated when health behavioral and sociodemographic factors were adjusted. When each health behavioral factor was considered separately, mediators such as smoking in men, and stress or exercise in women explained a large part of the decreased socioeconomic health inequalities. Conclusions: In Korea, subjective health inequalities arise from different socioeconomic status, but this difference is decreased by health behavioral factors. Therefore, socioeconomic inequity in selfrated health status can be corrected more effectively by promotional health behaviors. Key words: Social class, Health status, Socioeconomic factors, Health behavior, Korea J Prev Med Public Health 010;4(1):5061

Table 1. Classification of social stratum groups Occupation Legislator, senior officials and manager Professionals Technicians and associate professionals Clerks Service and sales works Skilled agricultural and fishery workers Craft and related trades workers Plant, machine operators and assemblers Elementary occupations Household Selfemployer Employer Job status Formal Formal Temporar EM* EM* y workers (Full time) (Part time) Day workers Family volunteer Others EM: *The present study was conducted on the working population. Not economically active population as a student, army and unemployed ruled out.

Table. Characteristics of study subjects among men and women Variables Age (yr) 0 9 0 9 40 49 50 59 60 64 Social stratum group Education level Income (1,000 KRW) High risk drinking for chronic harm Low risk Medium risk High risk Smoking Nonsmoker Exsmoker Smoker Stress A few times/never Occasionally Often Very often Exercise Regular No Residential area Large city Small city Rural area Marital status Never married Married Others* Total,800 *Others includes divorced, widowed and separated Men Women n % n % 0,81 0,786 0,84 0,565 0,5 0,16 0,677 0,454 0,74 0,144 0,567 1,105 1,44 0, 0,08 0,669 0,76 0,941 0,464 1,150 0,70 1,80 0,48 0,814 1,558 0,11 1,44 0,88 0,17 1,86 1,414 1,6 1,09 0,499 0,56,096 0,168 01.6 08.1 00.1 00. 008.0 007.7 04. 016. 06.5 005.1 00. 09.5 051. 008. 001.0 0.9 05.9 0.6 016.6 041.1 01. 045.7 015. 09.1 055.6 011.1 051. 09.9 007.8 049.5 050.5 045.1 07.11 017.8 019.1 074.9 006.0 576 875 911 604 64 15 46 1 50 01 571 1,91 940 1,71 47 106 751 88 994 657,117 64 471,94 117 179 44 1,695 91 199 1,48 1,748 1,57 1,146 547 49,9 98,0 017.8 07.1 08. 018.7 008. 004.7 014. 006.8 015.5 001.0 017.7 040.0 09.1 05.0 014.6 00. 0. 05.6 00.8 00. 065.5 019.9 014.6 090.8 00.6 005.5 01.1 05.5 08.4 006. 045.9 054.1 047.6 05.5 016.9 015. 07.4 01.

Table. Relation of social stratum group, socioeconomic and health behavior variables to selfrated health status among men and women Age (yr) 0 9 0 9 40 49 50 59 60 64 Social stratum group Education level Income (1,000 KRW) High risk drinking for chronic harm Low risk Medium risk High risk Smoking Nonsmoker Exsmoker Smoker Stress A few times/never Occasionally Often Very often Exercise Regular No Residential area Large city Small city Rural area Marital status Never married Married Others* Total UnHealthy group Men n (%) n (%) n (%) 81 786 84 565 5 16 677 454 74 144 567 1,105 1,44 8 669 76 941 464 1,150 70 1,80 48 814 1,558 11 1,44 88 17 1,86 1,414 1,6 1,09 499 56,096 168 1.6 8.1 0.1 0. 8.0 7.7 4. 16. 6.5 5.1 0. 9.5 51. 8. 1.0.9 5.9.6 16.6 41.1 1. 45.7 15. 9.1 55.6 11.1 51. 9.9 7.8 49.5 50.5 45.1 7.1 17.8 19.1 74.9 6.0 148 97 44 8 161 96 08 47 81 96 58 475 8 169 0 06 48 489 4 65 166 685 18 44 879 147 689 509 141 656 80 68 51 91 6 1,151 109 10.0 6.7 9.7.7 10.8 6.5 0.7 16.6 5.6 6.5 4.1.0 55. 11.4 1. 0.6.4.9.1 4.7 11. 46.1 1. 8.5 59. 9.9 46.4 4. 9.5 44.1 55.9 45.9 4.5 19.6 15. 77.5 7. Healthy group pvalue 89 401 7 64 10 69 07 61 48 09 60 61 64 8 6 78 45 11 515 04 595 45 90 679 164 745 9 76 70 584 580 56 08 10 945 59 17.7 9.6 0.5 17. 4.9 9.1 8.1 15.8 7.5.7 15.9 47.9 46.6 4.9 0.6 7.6 8.8 4.4 9. 9. 15.5 45. 18.6 9.7 51.7 1.5 56.7 5.0 5.8 55.6 44.4 44.1 40.0 15.8.6 71.9 4.5 74.4 57.0 94.7 10.6 1. 5.6 50.9 6. 11.7 7.9 0.000 0.000 576 875 911 604 64 15 46 1 50 1 571 1,91 940 1,71 47 106 751 88 994 657,117 64 471,94 117 179 44 1,695 91 199 1,48 1,748 1,57 1,146 547 49,9 98 Total 17.8 7.1 8. 18.7 8. 4.7 14. 6.8 15.5 1.0 17.7 40.0 9.1 5.0 14.6.. 5.6 0.8 0. 65.5 19.9 14.6 90.8.6 5.5 1.1 5.5 8. 6. 45.9 54.1 47.6 5.5 16.9 15. 7.4 1. UnHealthy group 59 47 548 446 17 6 197 10 15 7 418 794 48 1,05 78 85 7 45 65 49 1,10 65 68 1,75 7 118 08 959 67 149 845 1,098 95 650 68 1,45 85 Women n (%) n (%) n (%) 1. 4. 8..0 11.. 10.1 6.7 16. 1.4 1.5 40.9.0 54.1 19.5 4.4 19... 5. 67.4 18.8 1.8 90..7 6.1 10.7 49.4. 7.7 4.5 56.5 47.6.5 18.9 1.0 7. 14.7 Healthy group pvalue 17 40 6 158 47 90 65 91 187 4 15 497 51 660 94 1 78 75 69 165 807 77 0 1,181 45 61 16 76 85 50 67 650 61 496 179 60 914 11 4.6 1. 8. 1..7 7.0 0.6 7.1 14.5 0. 11.9 8.6 9.8 51. 7. 1.6 9.4 9.1 8.7 1.8 6.7 1.5 15.8 91.8.5 4.7 16.8 57..1.9 49.5 50.5 47.6 8.5 1.9 0. 71.0 8.8 169.7 15.4 181.0 107. 7.6.8 76.9 11. 17. 56.5 0.00 0.490 Total,800 1,486 1,14,0 1,94 1,87 *Others includes divorced, widowed and separated

Table 4. Sexspecific odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of selfrated health status according to socioeconomic factors aged 064 by logistic regression 95% CI Men Social stratum group Education Income (1,000 KRW) Women Social stratum group Education Income (1,000 KRW) Model 1* OR* 95% CI pvalue 1.17 0.861.600 0.861.600 1.45 1.05.00 1.05.00 1.50 1.10.050 1.10.050.11 1.5.00 1.5.00. 1.60.080 1.60.080 1.64 1.401.940 1.401.940.69 1.9.760 1.9.760. 5.40 5.40 1.16 0.951.410 0.951.410 1.4 1.161.70 1.161.70.4 1.89.090 1.89.090 1.18 0.811.70 0.811.70 1.5 0.99.0 0.99.0.05 1.41.990 1.41.990 5. 1.7115.97 1.7115.97.80 1.914.110 1.914.110 1.85 1.1.60 1.1.60 1.6 1.71.90 1.71.90.84.09.860.09.860.51 1.464.00 1.464.00 1. 1.011.480 1.011.480 1.71 1.40.080 1.40.080.4 1.94.050 1.94.050 0.160 0.060 0.0100 0.0510 0.1500 0.900 0.0570 0.0040 0.0440 Model Model OR 95% CI pvalue OR 95% CI pvalue 1.08 0.861.600 0.781.480 1. 1.05.00 0.881.70 1. 1.10.050 0.971.80 1.91 1.5.00 1.0.00 1.91 1.60.080 1.6.680 1.54 1.401.940 1.01.80.4 1.9.760 1.65.10 1.99 5.40 0.844.710 1.11 0.951.410 0.911.60 1.9 1.161.70 1.051.590.1 1.89.090 1.65.70 1.14 0.811.70 0.781.680 1.44 0.99.0 0.9.0 1.96 1.41.990 1.4.880 5.08 1.7115.97 1.6415.76.79 1.914.110 1.894.10 1.98 1.1.60 1.9.80 1.64 1.71.90 1.71.950.70.09.860 1.97.700.48 1.464.00 1.44.00 1.19 1.011.480 0.981.450 1.6 1.40.080 1.4.000. 1.94.050 1.76.800 *Model 1: odds ratio were adjusted for age Model : odds ratio were adjusted for age and health behavior variables Model : odds ratio were adjusted for age, health behavior, and sociodemographic variables 0.650 0.50 0.0780 0.0060 0.1170 0.10 0.0140 0.500 0.1040 0.0050 0.0750 1.09 0.861.600 0.791.500 1. 1.05.00 0.871.70 1.4 1.10.050 0.971.800 1.8 1.5.00 1.1.960 1.94 1.60.080 1.8.740 1.5 1.401.940 1.81.800.1 1.9.760 1.6.90 1.9 5.40 0.84.580 1.10 0.951.410 0.901.50 1.7 1.161.70 1.01.560.08 1.89.090 1.61.607 1.1 0.811.70 0.761.640 1.6 0.99.0 0.9.50 1.95 1.41.990 1..870 4.74 1.7115.97 1.5114.8.7 1.914.110 1.84.00.01 1.1.60 1.40.880 1.64 1.71.90 1.71.960.66.09.860 1.9.670.41 1.464.00 1.84.0 1.19 1.011.480 0.981.450 1.6 1.40.080 1.1.980. 1.94.050 1.75.80 0.590 0.80 0.0770 0.0160 0.150 0.50 0.00 0.570 0.100 0.0080 0.000 0.0800

Table 5. Logistic regression for effect of high risk drinking for acute harm, smoking, stress, and exercise on socioeconomic health inequality Men Social stratum group Education Income (1,000 KRW) Women Social stratum group Education Income (1,000 KRW) Age+high risk drinking for acute harm adjustment OR* 95% CI pvalue 1.17 0.861.600 0.861.600 1.46 1.05.00 1.05.00 1.51 1.11.050 1.11.050.09 1..70 1..70. 1.61.100 1.61.100 1.6 1.81.90 1.81.90.64 1.89.700 1.89.700.7 5.10 5.10 1.16 0.951.410 0.951.410 1.4 1.161.70 1.161.70.4 1.90.100 1.90.100 1.18 0.811.70 0.811.70 1.51 0.98.0 0.98.0.05 1.41.990 1.41.990 5.1 1.7015.90 1.7015.90.80 1.914.110 1.914.110 1.85 1.1.60 1.1.60 1.6 1.71.90 1.71.90.87.11.910.11.910.54 1.484.60 1.484.60 1. 1.011.490 1.011.490 1.7 1.41.090 1.41.090.45 1.95.070 1.95.070 0.180 0.040 0.0090 0.0590 0.1460 0.950 0.0600 0.0040 0.090 Age+smoking adjustment OR 95% CI pvalue 1.08 0.861.600 0.791.48 1.0 1.05.00 0.91.81 1.4 1.11.050 0.981.84 1.9 1..70 1..0 1.99 1.61.100 1.4.77 1.56 1.81.90 1.1.84.49 1.89.700 1.77.50.0 5.10 0.945.14 1.14 0.951.410 0.91.9 1.6 1.161.70 1.111.69.0 1.90.100 1.79.94 1.18 0.811.70 0.811.7 1.49 0.98.0 0.97.0.0 1.41.990 1.9.94 5.4 1.7015.90 1.716.0.76 1.914.110 1.884.05 1.84 1.1.60 1.0.61 1.60 1.71.90 1.51.90.81.11.910.07.8.49 1.484.60 1.454.7 1.1 1.011.490 1.47 1.70 1.41.090 1.9.07.40 1.95.070 1.91.0 0.60 0.10 0.0650 0.0040 0.0700 0.000 0.000 0.880 0.0690 0.0040 0.0500 Age+stress adjustment OR 95% CI pvalue 1.18 0.861.600 0.861.610 1.44 1.05.00 1.04.010 1.54 1.11.050 1.1.110.6 1..70 1.50.70.4 1.61.100 1.61.10 1.67 1.81.90 1.41.980.74 1.89.700 1.95.860.1 5.10 0.985.470 1.17 0.951.410 0.961.40 1.40 1.161.70 1.151.70.4 1.90.100 1.8.000 1.15 0.811.70 0.811.70 1.48 0.98.0 0.99.0.05 1.41.990 1.41.990 5.8 1.7015.90 1.7115.97.88 1.914.110 1.914.110.00 1.1.60 1.1.60 1.65 1.71.90 1.91.960.75.11.910.01.760.5 1.484.60 1.464.70 1.0 1.011.490 0.991.460 1.66 1.41.090 1.6.00.6 1.95.070 1.80.850 0.090 0.000 0.0070 0.0560 0.10 0.4880 0.0770 0.0040 0.0640 OR; Odds Ratio, CI; Confidence Interval *odds ratio were adjusted for age and high risk drinking for acute harm, odds ratio were adjusted for age and smoking odds ratio were adjusted for age and stress, odds ratio were adjusted for age and excercise Age+exercise adjustment OR 95% CI pvalue 1.14 0.861.600 0.81.55 1. 1.05.00 0.951.84 1.40 1.11.050 1.01.91 1.8 1..70 1.16.87.0 1.61.100 1.46.8 1.57 1.81.90 1.1.85.4 1.89.700 1.7.40.1 5.10 0.904.97 1.10 0.951.410 0.911.6 1. 1.161.70 1.081.6. 1.90.100 1.74.86 1.17 0.811.70 0.801.70 1.46 0.98.0 0.95.5 1.94 1.41.990 1..8 4.98 1.7015.90 1.615..70 1.914.110 1.8.95 1.84 1.1.60 1.0.60 1.59 1.71.90 1.41.89.68.11.910 1.96.66.6 1.484.60 1.74.06 1.19 1.011.490 0.991.45 1.66 1.41.090 1.6.0.4 1.95.070 1.86.94 0.490 0.100 0.040 0.0090 0.0840 0.080 0.0060 0.460 0.0840 0.0050 0.000 0.0710

1. Kaplan G, Barell V, Lusky A. Subjective state of health and survival in elderly adults. J Gerontol 1988; 4(4): S114 S10.. LaRue A, Bank L, Jarvik L, Hetland M. Health in old age: How do physicians ratings and selfratings compare? J Gerontol 1979; 4(5): 687691.. Belloc NB, Breslow L. Relationship of physical health status and health practices. Prev Med 197; 1(): 40941. 4. Idler EL, Benyamini Y. Selfrated health and mortality: A review of twentyseven community studies. J Health Soc Behav 1997; 8(1): 17. 5. Kaplan GA, Camacho T. Perceived health and mortality: A nineyear followup of the human population laboratory cohort. Am J Epidemiol 198; 117(): 904. 6. Subramanian SV, Kawachi I, Kennedy BP. Does the state you live in make a difference? Multilevel analysis of selfrated health in the US. Soc Sci Med 001; 5(1): 919. 7. Otiniano ME, Du XL, Ottenbacher K, Markides KS. The effect of diabetes combined with stroke on disability, selfrated health, and mortality in older Mexican Americans: Results from the Hispanic EPESE. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 00; 84(5): 7570. 8. Luoh MC, Herzog AR. Individual consequences of volunteer and paid work in old age: Health and mortality. J Health Soc Behav 00; 4(4): 490509. 9. Lantz PM, House JS, Lepkowski JM, Williams DR, Mero RP, Chen J. Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: Results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adults. JAMA 1998; 79(1): 170 1708. 10. Kim HR. The relationship of socioeconomic position and health behaviors with morbidity in Seoul, Korea. Health Soc Affair 005; 5(): 5. (Korean) 11. Mackenbach JP, Kunst AE, Cavelaars AE, Groenhof F, Geurts JJ. Socioeconomic inequalities in morbidity and mortality in western Europe. The EU Working Group on Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health. Lancet 1997; 49(9066): 16551659. 1. Kunst AE, Bos V, Lahelma E, Bartley M, Lissau I, Regidor E, et al. Trends in socioeconomic inequalities in selfassessed health in 10 European countries. Int J Epidemiol 005; 4(): 9505. 1. Dowd JB, Zajacova A. Does the predictive power of selfrated health for subsequent mortality risk vary by socioeconomic status in the US? Int J Epidemiol 007; 6(6): 11411. 14. House JS, Lepkowski JM, Kinney AM, Mero RP, Kessler RC, Herzog AR. The social stratification of aging and health. J Health Soc Behav 1994; 5(): 14. 15. Marmot MG, Smith GD, Stansfeld S, Patel C, North F, Head J, et al. Health inequalities among British civil servants: The Whitehall II study. Lancet 1991; 7(8754): 187194. 16. Adler NE, Boyce WT, Chesney MA, Folkman S, Syme SL. Socioeconomic inequalities in health: No easy solution. JAMA 199; 69(4): 140145. 17. Smith GD, Blane D, Bartly M. Explanations for socioeconomic differentials in mortality: Evidence from Britain and elsewhere. Eur J Public Health 1994; 4(): 11144. 18. Ohrr HC, Jee SH, Kim IS. Self rated health and mortality in elderly: Kangwha cohort, 8year follow up. Korean J Epidemiol 1994; 16(): 17180. (Korean) 19. Kweon SS, Kim SY, Im SJ, Sohn SJ, Choi JS. Selfrating perceived health: The influence on health care utilization and death risk. Korean J Prev Med 1999; (): 5560. (Korean) 0. Khang YH, Lee SI, Lee MS, Jo MW. Socioeconomic motality inequalities in Korea labor and income panel study. Korean J Health Policy Adm 004; 14(4): 10. (Korean) 1. Lee MS. Health inequalities among Korean adults: Socioeconomic status and residential area differences. Korean J Soc 005; 9(6): 1809. (Korean). Son M. The relationships of occupational class, educational level and deprivation with mortality in Korea. Korean J Prev Med 00; 5(1): 768. (Korean). Grzywacz JG, Almeida DM, Neupert SD, Ettner SL. Socioeconomic Status and Health: A Microlevel analysis of exposure and vulnerability to daily stressors. J Health Soc Behav 004; 45(1): 116. 4. Korea Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention. The Korean National Health and Nutrition Survey(KNHANES III). Seoul; Korea Ministry of Health and Welfare: 005. (Korean) 5. Borg V, Kristensen TS. Social class and selfrated health: Can the gradient be explained by differences in life style or work environment? Soc Sci Med 000; 51(7): 1019100. 6. Borrell C, Muntaner C, Benach J, Artazcoz L. Social class and selfreported health status among men and women: What is the role of work organisation, household material standards and household labour? Soc Sci Med 004; 58(10): 18691887. 7. Yoon TH, Moon OR, Lee SY, Jeong BG, Lee SJ, Kim NS, et al. Ditterences in gealth behaviors among the social strata in Korea. Korean J Prev Med 000; (4): 469476. (Korean) 8. Kim HR. Khnag YH, Yoon KJ, Kim CS. Socioeconomic Health Inequalities and Counter Policies in Korea. Seoul: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs; 004, p. 44

56. (Korean) 9. Chandola T, Bartley M, Wiggins R, Schofield P. Social inequalities in health by individual and household measures of social position in a cohort of healthy people. J Epidemiol Community Health 00; 57(1): 566. 0. WHO. International Guide for Monitoring Alcoholic Consumption and Related Harm. Geneva; World Health Organization; 000, p. 76. 1. Chung WJ, Yoo TW, Lee SM. Type of alcoholic beverage and high risk drinking for acute harm. Koren J Prev Med 00; 6(4): 889. (Korean). Yoo TW, Chung WJ, Lee SM, Lee SH. Alcoholic beverage preference and high risk drinking. J Korean Acad Fam Med 00; 4(10): 91919. (Korean). UK Statistics Authority. The National Statistics Socioeconomic Classification(NSSEC). 004. [cited 008 Oct 5]; Available from: URL:http://www.statistics.gov.uk/ methods_quality/ns_sec/. 4. Kim YM, Kim MH. Health inequalities in Korea: Current conditions and implications. J Prev Med Public Health 007; 40(6): 4148. (Korean) 5. Choi YJ, Jeong BG, Cho SI, JungChoi K, Jang SN, Kang M, et al. A review on socioeconomic position indicators in health inequality research. J Prev Med Public Health 007; 40(6): 475486. (Korean) 6. Sacker A, Firth D, Fitzpatrick R, Lynch K, Bartley M. Comparing health inequality in men and women: Prospective study of mortality 198696. BMJ 000; 0(745): 10107.