Self-rated health in Pakistan: results of a national health survey

  • Khabir Ahmad1, 2,

    Affiliated with

    • Tazeen H Jafar1, 3, 4Email author and

      Affiliated with

      • Nish Chaturvedi5

        Affiliated with

        BMC Public Health20055:51

        DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-5-51

        Received: 30 November 2004

        Accepted: 19 May 2005

        Published: 19 May 2005

        Abstract

        Background

        Self-rated health (SRH) is a robust predictor of mortality. In UK, migrants of South Asian descent, compared to native Caucasian populations, have substantially poorer SRH. Despite its validation among migrant South Asian populations and its popularity in developed countries as a useful public health tool, the SRH scale has not been used at a population level in countries in South Asia. We determined the prevalence of and risk factors for poor/fair SRH among individuals aged ≥15 years in Pakistan (n = 9442).

        Methods

        The National Health Survey of Pakistan was a cross-sectional population-based survey, conducted between 1990 and 1994, of 18 135 individuals aged 6 months and above; 9442 of them were aged ≥15 years. Our main outcome was SRH which was assessed using the question: "Would you say your health in general is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?" SRH was dichotomized into poor/fair, and good (excellent, very good, or good).

        Results

        Overall 65.1% respondents – 51.3 % men vs. 77.2 % women – rated their health as poor/fair. We found a significant interaction between sex and age (p < 0.0001). The interaction was due to the gender differences only in the ages 15–19 years, whereas poor/fair SRH at all older ages was more prevalent among women and increased at the same rate as it did among men. We also found province of dwelling, low or middle SES, literacy, rural dwelling and current tobacco use to be independently associated with poor/fair SRH.

        Conclusion

        This is the first study reporting on poor/fair SRH at a population-level in a South Asian country. The prevalence of poor/fair health in Pakistan, especially amongst women, is one of the worst ever reported, warranting immediate attention. Further research is needed to explain why women in Pakistan have, at all ages, poorer SRH than men.

        Background

        South Asia, home to over 1.5 billion people (a quarter of the world's population) has one of the worst health indicators in the world [1]. Around 34% of the world's childhood deaths occur in this region, which also has unacceptably high rates of maternal deaths [1, 2]. In addition, South Asia is also facing a growing burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD)[3]. South Asians, even if they live in developed countries, have substantially higher morbidity and mortality rates than the local majority populations from CVD. Further, compared to native Caucasian populations, migrants of South Asian descent have substantially poorer self-rated health (SRH)[4] which is a robust predictor of key health outcomes, including mortality and morbidity [5]. Out of all South Asian ethnic subgroups in the UK, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis have the poorest SRH[4]. This is particularly striking, as South Asians largely migrate to the UK in search of employment, and should thus be subject to the healthy migrant effect.

        Despite its popularity in developed countries as a useful public health tool and its validation among migrant South Asian populations[4], the SRH scale has not been used at a population level in countries in South Asia. SRH was assessed for the first time at a population level in the National Health Survey of Pakistan (NHSP)-1990–94. We analysed NHSP data to estimate the prevalence of and identify risk factors for poor/fair SRH among individuals aged ≥15 years in Pakistan (n = 9442).

        Methods

        NHSP's design is described in detail elsewhere[6, 7]. Briefly, the NHSP was commissioned by the Pakistan Medical Research Council (PMRC), and conducted between 1990–1994, under the technical assistance of the United States National Center for Health Statistics. The design of the survey was a modification of United States' Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). Using a two-stage stratified design, the NHSP was a nationwide household survey that collected information on health and nutritional indicators from a representative sample (18,135 individuals aged 6 months or older). Data collection involved the use of a questionnaire which had been validated in local languages. NHSP included an interview conducted at the participant's home by trained health workers, followed by a standardized physical examination in a well-equipped clinic by physicians.

        Our primary outcome measure was SRH which was assessed using the question: "Would you say your health in general is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor?" SRH was dichotomized into poor/fair and good (excellent, very good, or good). Household socioeconomic status (SES; high, middle or low) was defined on the basis of the number of material items owned (TV, bicycle, motorcycle, refrigerator, car, etc). Tobacco use (cigarettes, beddies, huqqa, chillum, and tobacco chewing) was dichotomized into current use or not. Respondents were asked, "Have you smoked at least 100 cigarettes or beddies during your entire life?" Those who replied "yes" were asked, "Do you smoke now?" Current smokers were persons who reported current smoking and having smoked at least 100 cigarettes or beddies during their lifetime. Respondents were also asked, "Have you chewed tobacco or used snuff at least 100 times during your entire life?" Those who said "yes" were asked, "Do you chew tobacco or use snuff now?" Those respondents who replied they did were reported as current tobacco chewers/snuff users.

        Literacy was defined as the ability to read. There are four provinces in Pakistan: Punjab, Sindh, North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan, each having its distinct culture, languages, and climate. Urban was defined as any area which had any of the following local government institutions at the time of 1981 population census: metropolitan corporation, municipal corporation, municipal committee, town committee, or cantonment board. All other areas were defined as rural.

        Analyses were performed with the SPSS statistical package (version 10.0). Means and standard deviations were computed for continuous variables, while proportions and 95% CIs for categorical variables. The association between poor/fair SRH and age, sex, literacy status, province of residence, area of residence (urban vs. rural), SES, marital status, hypertension, and current tobacco use was investigated, using univariate logistic regression. Variables that were associated with poor/fair health at p-value < 0.2 at the univariate logistic regression analysis were considered for the final multivariate logistic model (Table 2). Factors that were included in the final model were sex-age interaction, province of living, area of living (urban vs. rural), literacy, SES, and current tobacco use. Tests for interactions between sex and other independent variables were performed. The interaction between sex and age was assessed first using age as a continuous variable. However, based on the plot of association between poor/fair SRH and age by gender (Fig 1), age was used as a categorical variable (15–19 years and ≥20 years) in the final model.
        Table 2

        Unadjusted odds ratio for poor/fair self-rated health status for individuals aged 15 years and older in the first National Health Survey of Pakistan

        Variable

         

        Total

        Individuals with poor/fair SRH (%)

        Unadjusted Odds ratio for poor/fair SRH (95% CI)

        P-value

        Number of individuals

         

        9373

        6101 (65.1)

          

        Age

        15–19

        1636

        866(14.2)

        1.0

        <0.0001

         

        ≥ 20

        7737

        5235(85.8)

        1.86(1.67,2.07)

         

        Sex

        Female

        4995

        3856 (63.2)

        3.22 (2.94, 3.51)

        <0.0001

         

        Male

        4378

        2245 (36.8)

        1.0

         

        Marital status

        Never married

        2239

        1197 (20.6)

        1.0

        <0.0001

         

        Married

        5980

        4043 (69.4)

        1.82 (1.65, 2.01)

         
         

        Widow/widower/divorced/separated

        708

        582 (10.0)

        4.02 (3.26, 4.96)

         

        Dwelling

        Rural

        5995

        4087 (67.0)

        1.45 (1.33, 1.58)

        <0.0001

         

        Urban

        3378

        2014 (33.0)

        1.0

         

        Literacy

        Literate

        3012

        1570 (25.7)

        1.0

        <0.0001

         

        Illiterate

        6361

        4531 (74.3)

        2.27 (2.08, 2.49)

         

        Socioeconomic status (SES)

        Low SES

        3103

        2228 (36.5)

        1.81 (1.59, 2.04)

        <0.0001

         

        Middle SES

        4592

        2891 (47.4)

        1.21 (1.08, 1.35)

         
         

        High SES

        1678

        982 (16.1)

        1.0

         

        Province

        Punjab

        4858

        4015 (65.8)

        9.20 (8.17, 0.36)

        <0.0001

         

        NWFP

        1468

        684 (11.2)

        1.69 (1.47, 1.94)

         
         

        Balochistan

        1074

        729 (11.9)

        4.08 (3.48, 4.78)

         
         

        Sindh

        1973

        673 (11.0)

        1.0

         

        Currently use tobacco

        Yes

        2307

        1433 (23.5)

        0.84 (0.76, 0.93)

        <0.01

         

        No

        7066

        4668 (76.5)

        1.0

         

        Hypertension

        Normal

        7522

        4832 (80.1)

        1.0

        <0.01

         

        Hypertensive

        1772

        1203 (19.9)

        1.18 (1.05, 1.31)

         
        http://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-5-51/MediaObjects/12889_2004_Article_206_Fig1_HTML.jpg
        Figure 1

        Graphic presentation of the association between poor/fair self-rated health and age by gender.

        Results

        The overall agreement to be interviewed was 92.6%. A total of 9442 individuals interviewed were aged ≥15 years. The mean age (± SD) of the respondents was 36.3 years (± 17.1) [men: 37.3(± 17.9) vs. women 35.5(± 16.3)]. The mean missing data rate was 0.7 %. The missing data rates were 0 % for age, dwelling, literacy, SES, tobacco use and province; and 4.8 %, 0.9%, and 0.7 % for marital status, hypertension and self-rated health, respectively. Majority of the respondents lived in rural areas (64.1 %), were illiterate (68.0) and belonged to either low (33.1) or middle (49.0) socioeconomic group. As much as 7.6 % respondents (10.4 women vs. 4.6 % men) were widows, widowers, separated or divorced. Data on SRH were missing for 69 individuals (0.7%) so the final sample size was 9373 people. Of these, 65.1% respondents, 51.3 % men vs. 77.2 % women, rated their health as poor/fair (Table 1 and 2). In the Punjab province, 82.6 % people (69.6 % men vs. 94.6 % women) perceived their health to be poor/fair. Women had, at all ages, poorer SRH than men (Figure 1). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed a significant interaction between sex and age (p < 0.0001); but as shown in Fig 1 the interaction was due to the gender differences only in the ages 15–19 years, whereas poor/fair SRH at all older ages was more prevalent among women and increased at the same rate as it did among men. There was no significant interaction for ages 20 and above (p = 0.26). Women aged 15–19 years (adjusted OR 2.79, 95 % CI: 2.21–3.51), women aged ≥20 years (7.60, 6.23–9.27) and men aged ≥20 years(1.37, 1.14–1.64) were more likely to report having poor/fair health compared with men aged 15–19 years. Individuals living in Punjab had the highest odds (13.34, 95 % CI: 11.63–15.29) of poor/fair health. Other independent determinants of poor/fair health were low or middle SES, rural dwelling, literacy, and current tobacco use (Table 3).
        Table 1

        The distribution of self-related health status and other characteristics among men and women aged 15 years and older in the first National Health Survey of Pakistan

        Variable

         

        Men (n = 4414) %

        Women (n = 5028) %

        All (n = 9442) %

        Self-rated health status

        Excellent

        0.6

        0.3

        0.4

         

        Very good

        8.3

        2.1

        5.0

         

        Good

        39.8

        20.4

        29.5

         

        Fair

        37.0

        39.4

        38.3

         

        Poor

        14.3

        37.8

        26.8

        Age

        <20

        18.1

        16.9

        17.4

         

        20–29

        23.8

        27.1

        25.5

         

        30–39

        18.8

        20.3

        19.6

         

        40–49

        13.3

        14.4

        13.9

         

        ≥ 50

        26.1

        21.4

        23.6

        Dwelling

        Rural

        63.6

        64.5

        64.1

         

        Urban

        36.4

        35.5

        35.9

        Literacy

        Illiterate

        53.1

        81.1

        68.0

         

        Literate

        46.9

        18.9

        32.0

        Socio Economic Status (SES)

        Low SES

        33.7

        32.6

        33.1

         

        Middle SES

        49.0

        49.1

        49.0

         

        High SES

        17.3

        18.3

        17.9

        Currently use tobacco

        No

        60.3

        88.8

        75.5

         

        Yes

        39.7

        11.2

        24.5

        Province

        Sindh

        20.7

        21.2

        20.9

         

        Punjab

        53.3

        50.9

        52.0

         

        NWFP

        15.5

        15.7

        15.6

         

        Balochistan

        10.6

        12.3

        11.5

        Marital status

        Never married

        31.2

        19.6

        25.1

         

        Married

        64.1

        69.5

        66.9

         

        Widowed/widower

        4.5

        10.4

        7.6

         

        Divorced

        0.2

        0.3

        0.2

         

        Separated

        0.1

        0.2

        0.2

        Hypertension

        Normal

        79.8

        82.0

        80.9

         

        Hypertensive

        20.2

        18.0

        19.1

        Table 3

        Adjusted odds ratio for poor/fair self-rated health status for individuals aged 15 years and older in the first National Health Survey of Pakistan

        Variable

         

        Adjusted Odds ratio for poor/fair SRH (95% CI)

        Male

        15–19 years

        1.0

         

        ≥ 20 years

        1.37(1.14–1.64)

        Female

        15–19 years

        2.79(2.21–3.51)

         

        ≥ 20 years

        7.60(6.23–9.27)

        Dwelling

        Rural

        1.25(1.11–1.39)

         

        Urban

        1.0

        Literacy

        Literate

        1.33(1.17–1.50)

         

        Illiterate

        1.0

        Socioeconomic status (SES)

        Low SES

        1.56(1.34–1.82)

         

        Middle SES

        1.17(1.02–1.35)

         

        High SES

        1.0

        Province

        Punjab

        13.34(11.63–15.29)

         

        NWFP

        1.93(1.66–2.25)

         

        Balochistan

        4.52(3.79–5.39)

         

        Sindh

        1.0

        Currently use tobacco

        Yes

        1.33(1.17–1.51)

         

        No

        1.0

        Discussion

        The prevalence of poor/fair health in Pakistan (65.1%) is far higher than that in Japan (9.8), Canada (11.7), United States (14.5) and the UK (25.3) in almost comparably aged populations [811]. However, it is closer to that obtained in a study in Russia in 1996 where the prevalence was higher, mainly because of major social changes and political and economic uncertainties after the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union [12].

        South Asians, regardless of whether they live in their home countries or overseas have high morbidity and mortality rates. The fourth National Survey of Ethnic Minorities (1993–1994) in the UK that assessed the association between SRH and ethnicity found that people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin living in the UK had the poorest SRH, followed by Indians.

        Our most striking finding was the substantially poorer health status, at all ages, of women compared to men in Pakistan. To our knowledge, this is the first study on SRH reporting a significant interaction between age and sex (p < 0.0001) – although the interaction was due to the gender differences only in the ages 15–19 years and not in older ages. For individuals aged ≥20 years, poor/fair SRH was more prevalent among women and increased at the same rate as it did among men. A limitation of the NSHP was that it did not assess mental health status, which is an important determinant of SRH. Studies in both developed and developing countries have shown than women have a higher prevalence of depression and anxiety than men. These disparities are strongly age-related. So differences in the rates of poor/fair SRH between women and men in our analysis may be due to possible age-related sex differences in the prevalence of common mental disorders in Pakistan. According to the WHO, an important reason for why women have higher rates of depression and anxiety than men is the high rates of domestic and sexual violence to which women are increasingly subjected [13]. Violence against women is endemic in Pakistan [14]as are mental disorders such as depression and anxiety [15].

        The relationship between SES and the health status is well-established [1618] although the potential for reverse causation (people may be poor because they are ill) makes such interpretations difficult. In the NHSP, SES was determined by the number of household items owned. In our analysis, even in the adjusted model people with low and middle SES were 1.56 and 1.17 times more likely to report poor/fair health compared with their counterparts with high SES. This is consistent with the findings of a study conducted in Poland and Hungary where as the number of household items owned increased, the odds of poor health decreased [19]. It is argued that material aspects of ownership of household items are important, but equally so may be the psychosocial aspects. For example, many household items not only have a direct protective effect on health, they also are marker of a higher status in the society. They may affect psychosocial well-being by psychosocial processes [20].

        Another important finding is that tobacco use was independently associated with poor/fair SRH, although the cross-sectional design of the study limits the causal interpretation of this association. Several other studies have also reported a significant association between tobacco use and suboptimal SRH [2123]. We also found province of dwelling and rural dwelling to be independently associated with poor/fair SRH.

        Conclusion

        This is the first study reporting on the prevalence of and risk factor for poor/fair SRH at a population-level in a South Asian country. Our findings may be generalisable to several other countries in South Asia given similarities in physical environment, culture, socioeconomic conditions and public investment in health. The prevalence of poor/fair SRH in Pakistan is one of the worst ever reported globally, warranting immediate attention. Further research is needed to explain why women in Pakistan have, at all ages, poorer SRH than men.

        Declarations

        Acknowledgements

        Supported by grants from Fogarty International Center, NIH (Drs. Jafar/Chaturvedi). The funding source had no role in the analysis, or interpretation of the data or in the decision to submit the paper for publication. We thank members of the Pakistan Medical Research Council, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services for their assistance in acquisition of the NHSP data.

        Authors’ Affiliations

        (1)
        Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University
        (2)
        Section of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University
        (3)
        Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Aga Khan University
        (4)
        Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University Medical School
        (5)
        Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College of Medicine at St. Mary's

        References

        1. Bhutta ZA, Gupta I, de'Silva H, Manandhar D, Awasthi S, Hossain SM, Salam MA: Maternal and child health: is South Asia ready for change? Bmj 2004, 328: 816–819.View ArticlePubMed
        2. Lawn JE, Cousens S, Bhutta ZA, Darmstadt GL, Martines J, Paul V, Knippenberg R, Fogstadt H, Shetty P, Horton R: Why are 4 million newborn babies dying each year? Lancet 2004, 364: 399–401.View ArticlePubMed
        3. Chaturvedi N: Ethnic differences in cardiovascular disease. Heart 2003, 89: 681–686.View ArticlePubMed
        4. Chandola T: Ethnic and class differences in health in relation to British South Asians: using the new National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification. Soc Sci Med 2001, 52: 1285–1296.View ArticlePubMed
        5. Idler EL, Benyamini Y: Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies. J Health Soc Behav 1997, 38: 21–37.View ArticlePubMed
        6. Jafar TH, Chaturvedi N, Gul A, Khan AQ, Schmid CH, Levey AS: Ethnic differences and determinants of proteinuria among South Asian subgroups in Pakistan. Kidney Int 2003, 64: 1437–1444.View ArticlePubMed
        7. Jafar TH, Levey AS, Jafary FH, White F, Gul A, Rahbar MH, Khan AQ, Hattersley A, Schmid CH, Chaturvedi N: Ethnic subgroup differences in hypertension in Pakistan. J Hypertens 2003, 21: 905–912.View ArticlePubMed
        8. Shibuya K, Hashimoto H, Yano E: Individual income, income distribution, and self rated health in Japan: cross sectional analysis of nationally representative sample. Bmj 2002, 324: 16–19.View ArticlePubMed
        9. Statistics Canada. National Population Health Survey, 1996–97
        10. Kennedy BP, Kawachi I, Glass R, Prothrow-Stith D: Income distribution, socioeconomic status, and self rated health in the United States: multilevel analysis. Bmj 1998, 317: 917–921.PubMed
        11. Weich S, Lewis G, Jenkins SP: Income inequality and self rated health in Britain. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002, 56: 436–441.View ArticlePubMed
        12. Bobak M, Pikhart H, Hertzman C, Rose R, Marmot M: Socioeconomic factors, perceived control and self-reported health in Russia. A cross-sectional survey. Soc Sci Med 1998, 47: 269–279.View ArticlePubMed
        13. WHO. World Health Report 2003. Shaping the future. Geneva, World Health Organization 2003.
        14. Human Rights Watch. Crime or Custom? Violence Against Women in Pakistan http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/Pakistan [accessed August 4, 2004].
        15. Mirza I, Jenkins R: Risk factors, prevalence, and treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders in Pakistan: systematic review. Bmj 2004, 328: 794.View ArticlePubMed
        16. Smith GD, Bartley M, Blane D: The Black report on socioeconomic inequalities in health 10 years on. Bmj 1990, 301: 373–377.View ArticlePubMed
        17. Lynch J, Smith GD, Hillemeier M, Shaw M, Raghunathan T, Kaplan G: Income inequality, the psychosocial environment, and health: comparisons of wealthy nations. Lancet 2001, 358: 194–200.View ArticlePubMed
        18. Carlson P: Risk behaviours and self rated health in Russia 1998. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001, 55: 806–817.View ArticlePubMed
        19. Pikhart H, Bobak M, Rose R, Marmot M: Household item ownership and self-rated health: material and psychosocial explanations. BMC Public Health 2003, 3: 38.View ArticlePubMed
        20. Marmot M, Wilkinson RG: Psychosocial and material pathways in the relation between income and health: a response to Lynch et al. Bmj 2001, 322: 1233–1236.View ArticlePubMed
        21. Rius C, Fernandez E, Schiaffino A, Borras JM, Rodriguez-Artalejo F: Self perceived health and smoking in adolescents. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004, 58: 698–699.View ArticlePubMed
        22. Arday DR, Giovino GA, Schulman J, Nelson DE, Mowery P, Samet JM: Cigarette smoking and self-reported health problems among U.S. high school seniors, 1982–1989. Am J Health Promot 1995, 10: 111–116.PubMed
        23. Fernandez E, Schiaffino A, Rajmil L, Garcia M, Herdman M, Segura A: Re: "Health problems in teenage daily smokers versus nonsmokers, Norway, 1995–1997: the Nord-Trondelag Health Study". Am J Epidemiol 2000, 152: 395–396.View ArticlePubMed
        24. Pre-publication history

          1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1471-2458/​5/​51/​prepub

        Copyright

        © Ahmad et al. 2005

        This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.