Abstract
Background
Quality of Life (QoL) is an individual’s subjective perception of well-being within their cultural context. While most QoL studies focus on individuals with certain health conditions, factors such as sex, marital status, education, and family structure can influence QoL beyond age and health conditions. Considering the limited studies on QoL in the general Indian population, especially from rural areas, the present study aims to explore the QoL and sociodemographic factors affecting QoL among community-dwelling adults in rural Punjab.
Methods
This community-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 931 individuals of both sexes (59.6% female) aged 20–75 years residing in rural areas of Mansa, Punjab, India. Sociodemographic data were collected using an interview schedule, and QoL was measured using the WHOQOL-BREF.
Results
The overall mean QoL score was found to be 67.44 ± 14.7. The most affected QoL was in the physical domain (mean = 60.203 ± 13.49), followed by psychological (mean = 65.67 ± 18.3), social-relationship (mean = 69.88 ± 26.43), and environmental domains (mean = 74.05 ± 20.58). Adjusted logistic regression analysis revealed female sex, advanced age (age group ≥ 60 years), illiteracy, and unmarried status to be positively associated and family size of 6–10 members to be negatively associated with poor QoL.
Conclusion
The study suggests that females, elderlies, illiterates, and unmarried individuals may be at a higher risk of poor QoL. Further, education and a bigger family size appear to increase subjective well-being among participants.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
World Health Organization (WHO) defines Quality of Life (QoL) as individual perceptions of how one feels about one’s goals, expectations, and fears in the cultural and value system in which one has grown up [1, 2]. It is a multidimensional concept that involves perceptions of well-being as well as physical, psychological, social, and spiritual components [1, 2]. With advancements in medicine, better living standards, and the subsequent increase in life expectancy, the concept of QoL has become a crucial aspect of population health as medical interventions, at times, extend the length of life but at the expense of QoL [3, 4]. While individuals today enjoy longer lifespans compared to previous centuries, the extension of life does not necessarily equate to an improvement in QoL [3]. Therefore, merely measuring death rates is no longer sufficient to determine the changes in population health, and assessment of QoL is becoming increasingly important [3, 4]. Assessing QoL enables us to evaluate outcomes beyond morbidity and biological functioning [3, 5].
As a result, many healthcare and research workers have given major attention to exploring QoL in terms of individuals’ own perception of their physical and mental health, independence, and ability to adapt to their environment as well as their well-being within their culture and value systems [5, 6]. QOL serves as a measure reflecting the well-being of individuals within a nation or locality and is being increasingly recognized as a valid conceptual framework for assessing societal living standards across various communities [4].
QoL involves both objective and subjective approaches [3, 7, 8]. The objective approach relies on observations made by external observers, assessing variables such as disease, symptom remission, side effects, functional capacity changes, and participation in daily and social activities to evaluate the quality of the physical and social environment [3, 7, 8]. In contrast, the subjective approach provides opportunities for individuals to express their thoughts, knowledge, attitudes, moods, and feelings, prioritizing inner experiences that are influenced by their personal values and past experiences, and it is highly individualistic [3, 6,7,8]. In an attempt to go beyond objective measurements of QoL and include the subjective aspect of it, WHO developed a generic and subjective QoL instrument, namely the WHOQOL-BREF version [9]. It is a cross-culturally relevant and valid instrument, available in multiple languages [9].
As stated earlier, subjective QoL assessment is crucial for the appropriate evolution of population health or healthcare intervention [6, 10]. A considerable body of literature exists exploring the impact of health conditions and medical interventions on individuals’ subjective quality of life [6, 11,12,13,14]. Besides, studies have also attempted to understand the QoL within specific populations, such as older individuals, homeless people, refugees, etc. [15,16,17,18,19] as well as general populations worldwide [4].
However, limited research has explored QoL in the Indian general population, especially in rural areas [4, 20]. Also, the role of factors like factors such as age, sex, marital status, education, family structure, etc. in affecting QoL in Indian populations remains understudied. Considering the lack of studies on QoL and associated risk factors in rural Indian populations, the present study aimed to explore the QoL and the sociodemographic factors affecting it among community-dwelling adults in rural Punjab.
2 Methods
2.1 Study area and participants
The present cross-sectional study was conducted on a total of 931 apparently healthy adult individuals aged 20 to 75 years of either sex (59.6% female) residing in rural areas of Mansa district of Punjab, India. The state of Punjab is located in northwest India and shares borders with Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, and Rajasthan (Fig. 1) [21]. The state covers an area of 50,362 square kilometres, with a diverse landscape that ranges from plains to foothills, and according to the 2011 Census of India, has a population of approximately 27.7 million [21]. Punjabi is the official language, and Chandigarh, a Union Territory, serves as the capital [21]. The state’s economy is mainly agricultural, and it contributes significantly to the country's food security, specifically in wheat production [21]. Punjab has experienced significant economic growth after Independence, particularly with initiatives such as the Green Revolution, and despite having a small population share, Punjabis have a high per capita income, making them one of India’s most prosperous communities [21].
All the participants were recruited randomly using house-to-house survey method. Data were collected using the interview method. The inclusion criteria for the present study were to recruit participants with no self-reported chronic mental illness, cancer, or severe infectious diseases. Pregnant and lactating women were excluded. The present study was approved by the departmental ethics committee, Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi (Ref. No./Anth./2018/2890/28-12-18). In collecting data from the participants, several ethical considerations were carefully addressed. These included maintaining the confidentiality and anonymity of participants, obtaining informed consent, ensuring voluntary participation, minimizing discomfort, and adhering to the regulations specific to the field of study. Written informed consent (in Punjabi) was obtained prior to data collection from each participant.
2.2 Data collection tools and techniques
Data pertaining to socio-demographic variables like age, sex, education status, marital status, education status, occupation status, and family income were collected using a pretested and modified interview schedule.
2.3 Assessment of Quality of Life
The WHQOL-BREF Hindi version was used for assessing the QoL of the participants [2, 9]. It consists of 26 items, and these items are categorized into four health domains, namely physical (7 items), psychological (6 items), social relationship (3 items), and environment (8 items) [2, 9]. There are three ways of calculating the WHOQOL-BREF scores: raw scores, transformed scores ranging from 4 to 20, and transformed scores ranging from 0 to 100, where higher scores represent better QoL [2, 9]. For the present study, the raw scores of each domain have been scaled to 100. Further, to estimate the overall well-being, average scores of all four domains have been used. Since there is no specific cutoff for defining good and poor QoL, medians of overall and domain-specific scores have been used as cut-off points to define overall and domain-specific good and poor QoL [22]. Those scoring equal to or above median levels were defined as having good QoL, while those below the median level were defined as having poor QoL.
2.4 Statistical analysis
Data analysis for this study was performed using SPSS version 22. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to determine whether or not the continuous variables were normally distributed. Continuous variables are expressed as mean value and standard deviation (SD). Categorical variables are described as frequencies and percentages. Differences in means of two and more than two groups were established using t-test and ANOVA, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate the odds ratio. Logistic regression models were adjusted for confounders like age, sex, education status, and occupation status. A value of p-value < 0.05 was considered as the level of significance for all the statistical tests used in the present study.
3 Results
3.1 Overall and gender-wise mean QoL scores
The general characteristic of participants is presented in Table 1. The overall mean QoL score of the sample was found to be 67.44 + 14.7 (Table 2). In gender-stratified analysis, females were found to have lower overall and domain-specific QoL scores than males. The observed differences were statistically significant for the psychological, social relationship, and environment domains as well as overall QoL (Table 2).
3.2 Sociodemographic determinants of QoL
Significant differences in the mean QoL scores with observed respect to differences in age groups, sex, marital status, educational status, and employment status, where lower mean QoL scores were observed for those in older age groups than those in younger age groups, females than males, widowed than married, non-literates than literates and unemployed than employed (Table 3). Differences in mean QoL were not significant with respect to religion, caste (except for the environment domain), family size, and average annual income (except for the social relationship domain).
3.3 Odds ratio analysis
Adjusted logistic regression analysis was performed to understand the association of studied sociodemographic variables with QoL (Table 4). This analysis revealed that older participants (aged 60 years and above) were at 3.27 to 4.24 times significantly increased risk for poor QoL in the physical domain than those in the 20–29 age group. Further, females were at 1.7 to 2.1-fold increased risk for poor QoL in the psychological, social-relationship, and environment domains as well in the overall assessment. Similarly, unmarried participants were at a 2.3-fold higher risk of poor QoL in the social relationship domain than married participants. Compared to literates, illiterates were found to be at 1.5 to 1.7 folds increased risk of poor QoL in physical and environment domains as well as overall poor QoL. Nevertheless, those with a family size of 6–10 members were at a reduced risk of poor QoL in the physical domain and overall assessment than those with five or fewer family members. Surprisingly, illiterate participants, compared to literates, were at a reduced risk of poor QoL in the psychological domain (Table 4).
4 Discussion
The present study was undertaken to assess the QoL of rural communities in Punjab, India, and also to explore the socio-demographic determinants of poor QoL. In the present study, the overall mean QoL score was found to be 67.44 ± 14.7. In a meta-analysis examining the QoL across various populations globally, categorized by their Human Development Index (HDI), it was found that very high HDI countries had an overall mean QoL score of 74.26, while high to low HDI countries ranged from 65.57 to 64.10 [4]. The mean QoL score of 67.44 observed in the present study suggests that the QoL in the study sample surpasses that of countries with low, medium, and high HDI, but remains below the QoL observed in countries with very high HDI [4].
Most previous studies from India have been conducted among the elderly population or individuals with health conditions and have reported lower QoL than the present study. For instance, the mean QoL scores were reported as 38.9 among the elderly in Kerala [23]. 48.86 among the elderly in Haryana [22], 49.74 among the elderly in Urban Puducherry [24], 55.10 among diabetics in Andhra Pradesh [25], 58.05 among diabetics in Tamil Nadu, 61.49 among people with epilepsy in Tamil Nadu, and 63.8 among people with epilepsy in Punjab [26]. Only a few studies from India have assessed the QoL in the general population and have reported either comparable or lower mean QoL scores than the present study. For instance, mean QoL scores were reported as 63.5 among adults in Puducherry [27] and 67.6 among rural adults from Haryana [20]. However, higher mean QoL scores, for instance, 86.6 among adults in Delhi, have also been reported [28]. When compared to studies from other countries, the mean QoL in the present study is comparable to that reported in some of the previous studies [10, 29]; such as those by Lodhi et al. among a Pakistani population, Chen et al. among a Chinese population, Wong et al. among Hong Kong population [29,30,31]. Based on these observations, the present study indicates an overall good QoL in the study sample. However, the higher mean QoL in very high HDI countries as well as some studies from India [4, 28], suggest the scope for improvement.
Further, it is pertinent to compare the findings of the present studies with those of the World Happiness Report 2024 [32]. Although the tools used in both studies differ, they enable a subjective assessment. In contrast to the observations of the World Happiness Report 2024, which ranks India 126th in terms of life evaluations for the entire population [32], the study sample seems to exhibit a notably higher quality of life. This is particularly evident when considering that the mean QoL in the present study is relatively higher than that reported in many middle and high-income countries, several of which were ranked above India in the World Happiness Report 2024 [4, 32].
Coming to the domain-wise analysis, in the present study, the QoL was found to be the most affected in the physical health domain, followed by the psychological and social relationship domains. The least affected domain was environmental health. A similar pattern of physical followed by psychological health being most affected domains has been reported by Malibary et al. among medical students of Saudi Arabia, Gholami et al. among patients with cataract in Iran, and Mohammed et al. among elderlies of the Gaza Strip [33,34,35]. However, other studies on general populations have reported environmental and psychological domains to be the most affected domains [4, 29]. For instance, low QoL score in environmental health was reported among adults in Pakistan [29]. Lower well-being in psychological health has been reported by Zang et al. among Chinese medical students [36], and Ghazanfar et al. among medical students in Punjab [37].
The variation in the patterns of most affected domains may be attributed to variations in study settings and associated factors. The available literature on QoL among general populations largely agrees on environmental and psychological domains being the most affected domains [4]. However, the present study found the physical health domain to be the most affected among the participants. This is a worrying trend, given that the participants are from younger age groups as well. Long hours of engagement in farming and related work, as well as a high prevalence of hypertension and diabetes in the study area [38] could be some of the factors behind this observation. This indicates that there is a need to improve healthcare facilities at the community level as well as implement early intervention programs. Further, since a sizable proportion of participants are farmers, ergonomic farming practices must also be promoted.
Regarding socio-demographic determinants of QoL, while age, sex, marital status, education, and family size, were found to be associated with poor QoL, other factors like religion, caste, and annual income, were not found to be associated in the present study. The adjusted regression model revealed higher age to be associated with poor QoL. Other studies have also reported similar findings [29, 39]. However, a contrary observation was reported by Cruz et al. among Brazil’s population, where the age group 30–40 years was found to have most affected QoL in all the domains [40]. Aging is associated with both physical and mental changes, which, in turn, is thought to affect the QoL [29]. Literature suggests that, with age emotional sensitivity also increases due to factors like social loneliness, the burden of age-related disease, and the loss of close ones leading to decreased well-being among elderlies [41].
Though studies among elderlies from India have mostly found the physical domain to be severely affected [24], studies from developed nations like Japan have found no association between advanced age and poor physical QoL, indicating that increasing age may not necessarily reduce the QoL [42]. While old age increases one’s vulnerability to disorders and disabilities which, at times, may not be preventable, a healthy lifestyle, better healthcare facilities, including family physicians at the level of the primary healthcare system, and easy access to tertiary health care facilities when needed, may help reduce the burden of physical health conditions among elderlies. Further, social and emotional support programs should also be promoted in rural areas to improve psychological, social, and environmental well-being.
In sex-wise analysis, mean QoL scores of females in all domains (except physical health) as well as in the overall assessment, were found to be significantly lower than that of their male counterparts. Moreover, the adjusted regression model revealed females to be at a higher risk of poor QoL in the social, and psychological domain and also in the overall assessment compared to males. These observations are in concordance with previous studies [35, 43]. However, a contrasting finding has been reported from Japan, where women were found to have better QoL than men [44]. Poorer QoL among females than males could be due to different societal factors and cultural norms, such as the high prevalence of illiteracy among females in low- and middle-income countries including India, financial dependence, familial stress, lack of time for leisure activity and heavy work pressure, as women, in general, are expected to take up multiple responsibilities including household chores and farming work [43]. The recently published World Happiness Report 2024 also enables us to reflect on the findings of the present study. According to the report, among Indians, older age was associated with higher life satisfaction, and older women had higher life satisfaction than their male counterparts after adjusting for covariates. This suggests that age and gender alone may not be associated with reduced quality of life; however, other contributing factors may also play a role [45].
Further, marital status was found to be significantly associated with poor QoL in the social-relationship domain, where widow, widower, divorced, or unmarried participants were found to be having poorer QoL as compared to married participants. Similar findings have been reported in some of the previous studies [44, 46], where married individuals had better QoL than widowed/divorced/unmarried individuals. Being married, or having a companion has repeatedly been associated with better well-being [22]. Companionship helps in building dependable emotional and social networks, which is crucial for well-being and QoL [22].
Expectedly, illiterate participants in the present study were at a higher risk of poor QoL in physical health, psychological health, and environmental health domains than their literate counterparts. A similar observation, of better QoL with improved educational status, has been reported in previous studies [47], Good education, apart from being positively associated with better socioeconomic status, has been found to be independently associated with better health outcomes and well-being [48]. It is apt to discuss a closely related factor, employment status, at this point. Though unemployed participants were found to have significantly lower mean QoL scores in all the domains than employed participants, adjusted regression analysis revealed no significant association between employment status and QoL in the present study. These findings are largely in contradiction to other studies [29, 49]. This can be due to the fact that the majority of the participants in the present study are farmers, who may be seasonally unemployed but may have other sources of income. Together these observations suggest that more than employment status, education may play a role in ensuring better well-being in farming communities.
This proposition is further strengthened by another finding of the present study. Rather surprisingly, average annual income was also not found to be associated with QoL. Again, this observation is also in contradiction to a previous report [50], yet underscores the point that indicators of QoL in a rural farming community are likely to be different from urban and non-agricultural communities. In this study population, the majority of participants had attained formal education only up to the secondary school level, which may not have substantial employment benefits, yet even this level of education appears to play a protective role against poor QoL. Overall, this discussion highlights that even though education may not translate into non-farming or high-paid jobs, it is essential for better QoL.
Lastly, the present study revealed that participants from a larger family (of 6–10 members) had a significantly reduced risk of poor QoL than those from a smaller family (of five or fewer members). This result indicates that family plays a crucial role in modulating psychological and social well-being. The role of family size in QoL in rural communities should be further investigated.
When interpreting the result, it is important to take into consideration the study’s limitations. This is a cross-sectional study therefore it is limited to assessing the association, rather than causality between QoL and sociodemographic factors.
5 Conclusions
In the present study, the most affected QoL was in the physical domain, followed by psychological, social-relationship, and environmental domains. Adjusted regression analysis revealed female sex, advanced age (age group ≥ 60 years), illiteracy, and unmarried status to be positively associated and family size of 6–10 members to be negatively associated with poor QoL. The present study indicates that occupation and family income may not be directly associated with QoL; however, education appears to play an important role. This suggests that even though education may not be translating into non-farming jobs or monetary advances, it remains a significant contributor to better QoL.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
- HDI:
-
Human Development Index
- QoL:
-
Quality of Life
- WHO:
-
World Health Organization
References
Carr A, Higginson I, Robinson PG. Quality of life, Volume 13. BMJ Books; 2003. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cki178.
WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28(3):551–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291798006667.
Karimi M, Brazier J. Health, health-related quality of life, and quality of life: what is the difference? Pharmacoeconomics. 2016;34(7):645–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-016-0389-9.
Koohi F, Nedjat S, Yaseri M, Cheraghi Z. Quality of life among general populations of different countries in the past 10 years, with a focus on human development index: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Iran J Public Health. 2017;46(1):12–22.
Phyo AZZ, Freak-Poli R, Craig H, Gasevic D, Stocks NP, Gonzalez-Chica DA, Ryan J. Quality of life and mortality in the general population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2020;20:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09639-9.
Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA, WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(2):299–310. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QURE.0000018486.91360.00.
Cummins RA. Objective and subjective quality of life: an interactive model. Soc Indic Res. 2000;52:55–72. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007027822521.
Ruggeri M, Warner R, Bisoffi G, Fontecedro L. Subjective and objective dimensions of quality of life in psychiatric patients: a factor analytical approach: the South Verona Outcome Project 4. Br J Psychiatry. 2001;178(3):268–75. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007027822521.
WHO. IN: WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. 2024. https://www.who.int/tools/whoqol/whoqol-bref. Accessed 12 Apr 2024.
Chen Y, Sun G, Guo X, Chen S, Chang Y, Li Y, Sun Y. Factors affecting the quality of life among Chinese rural general residents: a cross-sectional study. Public Health. 2017;146:140–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2017.01.023.
Xu DW, Long XD, Xia Q. A review of life quality in living donors after liver transplantation. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(1):20.
Hand C. Measuring health-related quality of life in adults with chronic conditions in primary care settings: critical review of concepts and 3 tools. Can Fam Physician. 2016;62(7):e375–83.
Cooper V, Clatworthy J, Harding R, Whetham J. Measuring quality of life among people living with HIV: a systematic review of reviews. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0778-6.
Al Dawsari SM, Alsalhabi HMA, Alshamrani MAA, Alsalhabi MMA. Quality of life among patients with chronic diseases: integrative review. J Med Health Stud. 2023;4(1):39–46. https://doi.org/10.32996/jmhs.2023.4.1.4.
Baernholdt M, Hinton I, Yan G, Rose K, Mattos M. Factors associated with quality of life in older adults in the United States. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:527–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9954-z.
Vanleerberghe P, De Witte N, Claes C, Schalock RL, Verté D. The quality of life of older people aging in place: a literature review. Qual Life Res. 2017;26:2899–907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1651-0.
van der Boor CF, Amos R, Nevitt S, Dowrick C, White RG. Systematic review of factors associated with quality of life of asylum seekers and refugees in high-income countries. Confl Health. 2020;14(1):48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-020-00292-y.
Gagliardi J, Brettschneider C, König HH. Health-related quality of life of refugees: a systematic review of studies using the WHOQOL-BREF instrument in general and clinical refugee populations in the community setting. Confl Health. 2021;15(1):44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-021-00378-1.
Flike K, Aronowitz T. Factors that influence quality of life in people experiencing homelessness: a systematic mixed studies review. J Am Psychiatr Nurses Assoc. 2022;28(2):128–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390320985286.
Ramadass S, Rai SK, Gupta SK, Kant S, Wadhwa S, Sood M, Sreenivas V. Prevalence of disability and its association with sociodemographic factors and quality of life in a rural adult population of northern India. Natl Med J India. 2018;31(5):268–73. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_10_18.
Government of Punjab. In: Know Punjab. 2024. https://punjab.gov.in/know-punjab/. Accessed 12 Apr 2024.
Singh A, Palaniyandi S, Palaniyandi A, Gupta V. Health related quality of life among rural elderly using WHOQOL-BREF in the most backward district of India. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2022;11(3):1162–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1073_21.
Thadathil SE, Jose R, Varghese S. Assessment of domain wise quality of life among elderly population using WHO-BREF scale and its determinants in a rural setting of Kerala. Int J Curr Med Appl Sci. 2015;7(1):43–6.
Kumar SG, Majumdar A, Pavithra G. Quality of life (QOL) and its associated factors using WHOQOL-BREF among elderly in urban Puducherry, India. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/6996.3917.
Gara HK, Panda K, Vanamali DR. WHOQOL-BREF as a tool for evaluation of quality of life and its predictors in type-2 diabetics: a cross-sectional study in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Assam J Intern Med. 2020;10(1):15.
Kalra S, Jiwan T, Singh G, Gautam PL, Bansal A, Bansal N. Health-related quality of life and the associated predictors among people with epilepsy: WHOQOL-BREF scale. Int J Health Sci Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.52403/ijhsr.20221025.
Olickal JJ, Saya GK, Selvaraj R, Chinnakali P. Association of alcohol use with quality of life (QoL): a community-based study from Puducherry, India. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2021;10: 100697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100697.
Kumar S, Kartikey D, Biswas J. Status of perceived stress and quality of life in adults during COVID-19 pandemic. Indian J Priv Psychiatry. 2022;16(1):25–8.
Lodhi FS, Montazeri A, Nedjat S, Mahmoodi M, Farooq U, Yaseri M, Kasaeian A, Holakouie-Naieni K. Assessing the quality of life among Pakistani general population and their associated factors by using the World Health Organization’s quality of life instrument (WHOQOL-BREF): a population based cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-1065-x.
Wong FY, Yang L, Yuen JWM, Chang KKP, Wong FKY. Assessing quality of life using WHOQOL-BREF: a cross-sectional study on the association between quality of life and neighborhood environmental satisfaction, and the mediating effect of health-related behaviors. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5942-3.
Rakesh PS, Ramesh R, Rachel P, Chanda R, Satish N, Mohan VR. Quality of life among people with epilepsy: a cross-sectional study from rural southern India. Natl Med J India. 2012;25(5):261–4.
Helliwell JF, Huang H, Shiplett H, Wang S. Happiness of the younger, the older, and those in between. In: Helliwell JF, Layard R, Sachs JD, De Neve JE, Aknin LB, Wang S, editors. World happiness report 2024. University of Oxford, Wellbeing Research Centre; 2024. p. 11–60. https://doi.org/10.18724/whr-f1p2-qj33.
Malibary H, Zagzoog MM, Banjari MA, Bamashmous RO, Omer AR. Quality of life (QoL) among medical students in Saudi Arabia: a study using the WHOQOL-BREF instrument. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):344. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-019-1775-8.
Gholami A, Araghi MT, Shamsabadi F, Bayat M, Dabirkhani F, Moradpour F, et al. Application of the world health organization quality of life instrument, short form (WHOQOL-BREF) to patients with cataract. Epidemiol Health. 2016;38: e2016005. https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2016005.
Elsous AM, Radwan MM, Askari EA, Abu AM. Quality of life among elderly residents in the Gaza Strip: a community-based study. Ann Saudi Med. 2019;39(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2019.1.
Zhang Y, Qu B, Lun S, Wang D, Guo Y, Liu J. Quality of life of medical students in China: a study using the WHOQOL-BREF. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11): e49714. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049714.
Ghazanfar H, Iqbal S, Naseem S. Quality of life of post-graduate medical students working in private and public hospitals in Punjab as measured by WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. J Pak Med Assoc. 2018;68(6):908–13.
Thakur JS, Nangia R. Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension and diabetes: results from two state-wide STEPS survey in Punjab and Haryana, India. Front Public Health. 2022;10: 768471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.768471.
Keyvanara M, Khasti BY, Zadeh MR, Modaber F. Study of the relationship between quality of life and socioeconomic status in Isfahan at 2011. J Educ Health Promot. 2015;4:92. https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9531.171806.
Cruz LN, Polanczyk CA, Camey SA, Hoffmann JF, Fleck MP. Quality of life in Brazil: normative values for the WHOQOL-BREF in a southern general population sample. Qual Life Res. 2011;20(7):1123–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9845-3.
Charles ST, Carstensen LL. Social and emotional aging. Annu Rev Psychol. 2010;61:383–409. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100448.
Ohaeri JU, Awadalla AW, Gado OM. Subjective quality of life in a nationwide sample of Kuwaiti subjects using the short version of the WHO quality of life instrument. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2009;44(8):693–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-008-0477-z.
Huang IC, Wu AW, Frangakis C. Do the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF measure the same constructs? Evidence from the Taiwan population. Qual Life Res. 2006;15:15–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-8486-9.
Bansal P, Dixit AM, Jain PK, Gupta SK, Bajpai PK, Mehra J. Assessment of quality of life among elderly population of rural areas of Etawah district: a cross-sectional study. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2019;6(5):1965–9. https://doi.org/10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20191617.
Paul R, Pai M, Thalil M, Srivastava S. Chapter 5: Differences in life satisfaction among older adults in India. In: Helliwell JF, Layard R, Sachs JD, De Neve JE, Aknin LB, Wang S, editors. World happiness report 2024. University of Oxford, Wellbeing Research Centre; 2024. p. 131–54. https://doi.org/10.18724/whr-2f21-he52.
Mittal A, Aggarwal A, Nayyar S, Thakral A, Natt HK, Singh A. Assessment of quality of life of the elderly living in rural and urban areas of Ambala District: a comparative study. J Mid-life Health. 2019;10(4):173–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/jmh.JMH_128_19.
Dumith SD, Leite JS, Fernandes SS, Sanchez ÉF, Demenech LM. Social determinants of quality of life in a developing country: evidence from a Brazilian sample. J Public Health. 2021;30:1465–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-020-01452-3.
Mondal NA, Kannaujiya AK, Ali B. Quality of life of elderly in rural Murshidabad (West Bengal). Soc Sci Spectr. 2020;5(1):42–9.
Veeri RB, Gupta AK, Pal B, Siddiqui NA, Priya D, Das P, et al. Assessment of quality of life using WHOQOL-BREF in patients with visceral leishmaniasis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019;17(1):53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1112-2.
Gobbens RJ, Remmen R. The effects of sociodemographic factors on quality of life among people aged 50 years or older are not unequivocal: comparing SF-12, WHOQOL-BREF, and WHOQOL-OLD. Clin Interv Aging. 2019;14:231–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S189560.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge the grant received from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).
Funding
This work was supported by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), under grant number 5/4/1-33 2020-NCD-I.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SK, KNS, and VC contributed to conceptualization and methodology. SK and VC conducted the formal analysis and investigation. SK drafted the original manuscript. VC and KNS revised it critically. All co-authors, SK, VC, and KNS, reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. The study protocol was approved by the Departmental Ethics Committee, Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi (Approval Ref. No./Anth./2018/2890/28-12-18). Informed written consent, typed in the local language, was obtained from each participant before their recruitment.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
Authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kasaudhan, S., Saraswathy, K.N. & Chaudhary, V. Quality of Life and its sociodemographic determinants: a population-based study from rural Punjab, India. Discov Soc Sci Health 4, 26 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-024-00085-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44155-024-00085-1