Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Jan 8;19(1):35.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-6380-y.

Associations of socioeconomic and religious factors with health: a population-based, comparison study between China and Korea using the 2010 East Asian social survey

Roeul Kim  1 , Woojin Chung  2   3
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Associations of socioeconomic and religious factors with health: a population-based, comparison study between China and Korea using the 2010 East Asian social survey

Roeul Kim et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Cross-national comparisons of the associations of socioeconomic and religious factors with health can facilitate our understanding of differences in health determinants between countries and the development of policies to reduce health differentials appropriate to each country. However, very few such studies have been conducted in East Asia.

Methods: This study set out to compare the associations of socioeconomic and religious factors with health in China and Korea using the 2010 East Asian Social Survey, which was based on nationally representative samples. The study participants included 4980 individuals, 3629 in China and 1351 in Korea, aged ≥20 years. The dependent variable, individuals' self-rated health, was categorized into poor, good, and excellent. Socioeconomic (education, employment, household income, and self-assessed social class) and religious factors (affiliation) were used as independent variables of interest. A multinomial logistic regression was performed with and without adjustments for factors such as demographics, health-related risks, the health system, and social capital.

Results: According to the results, China had a higher proportion of individuals who reported excellent health than did Korea (57.4% vs. 52.0%). After adjusting for all studied confounders, we found that the employment, household income, and social class gradient in health were significant in China, whereas the education and religion gradients in health were significant in Korea. For example, the odds ratio for poor health versus excellent health among those in the highest social class was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.27-0.84), compared to that of people in the lowest social class in China; and this odds ratio in people with college education or higher was 0.28 (95% CI, 0.14-0.59) compared to that of people with elementary school education or lower in Korea.

Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the important role of socioeconomic and religious factors in health in China and Korea as well as clear differences in this regard. Further cross-national studies are needed to provide a better understanding of the relationship between socioeconomic and religious factors and health and to draft appropriate health improvement policies in both countries.

Keywords: China; Cross-national comparison; Korea; Religion; Self-rated health; Socioeconomic factors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The EASS data archive provides publicly available data from anonymous respondents. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all participants, due to the limited time for survey interviews, and waivers of written consent were authorized by an ethics committee. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the institutional review board of the Graduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea (IRB No. 2014–225).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lantz PM, Lynch JW, House JS, Lepkowski JM, Mero RP, Musick MA, Williams DR. Socioeconomic disparities in health change in a longitudinal study of US adults: the role of health-risk behaviors. Soc Sci Med. 2001;53(1):29–40. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00319-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wen M, Gu D. The effects of childhood, adult, and community socioeconomic conditions on health and mortality among older adults in China. Demography. 2011;48(1):153–181. doi: 10.1007/s13524-010-0003-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Costa-Font J, Hernandez-Quevedo C. Measuring inequalities in health: what do we know? What do we need to know? Health Policy. 2012;106(2):195–206. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.04.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Siddiqi A, Nguyen QC. A cross-national comparative perspective on racial inequities in health: the USA versus Canada. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;64(1):29–35. doi: 10.1136/jech.2008.085068. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dubikaytis T, Harkanen T, Regushevskaya E, Hemminki E, Haavio-Mannila E, Laanpere M, Kuznetsova O, Koskinen S. Socioeconomic differences in self-rated health among women: a comparison of St. Petersburg to Estonia and Finland. Int J Equity Health. 2014;13(1):39. doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-13-39. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types