Table 2 Demographic characteristic of the sample of the field test
From: Development and validation of the Chinese Quality of Life Instrument
| Â | Number of subjects (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Demographics | Healthy Subjects | Patient subjects | All Subjects | |
| Â | Â | Out-patients | In-patients | Â |
No. of subjects | 80 (29.3%) | 91 (33.3%) | 102 (37.3%) | 273 (100%) |
Source of sampling: | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Northern China | 33 (41.3%) | 34 (37.4%) | 34 (33.3%) | 101 (37.0%) |
Southern China | 47 (58.8%) | 57 (62.6%) | 68 (66.7%) | 172 (63.0%) |
Gender | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Male | 40 (50.0%) | 46 (50.5%) | 51 (50.0%) | 137 (50.2%) |
Female | 40 (50.0%) | 45 (49.5%) | 51 (50.0%) | 136 (49.8%) |
Age (Years) | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Mean (SD) | 38.8 (14.1) | 39.1 (14.0) | 40.6 (14.6) | 39.6 (14.1) |
range | 18–68 | 18–65 | 19–67 | 18–68 |
Ethnic group | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Han | 74 (92.5%) | 84 (92.3%) | 95 (93.1%) | 253 (92.7%) |
Hui | 4 (5.0%) | 6 (6.6%) | 5 (4.9%) | 15 (5.5%) |
Others | 2 (2.5%) | 1 (1.1%) | 2 (2.0%) | 5 (1.8%) |
Marital status | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Single | 30 (37.5%) | 26 (28.6%) | 21 (20.5%) | 77 (28.2%) |
Married | 48 (60.0%) | 60 (65.9%) | 71 (69.6%) | 179 (65.6%) |
Partnered | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.1%) | 5 (4.9%) | 6 (2.2%) |
Separated/Divorced | 1 (1.25%) | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (1.0%) | 3 (1.1%) |
Widowed | 1 (1.25%) | 2 (2.2%) | 2 (2.0%) | 5 (1.8%) |
Missing | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.1%) | 2 (2.0%) | 3 (1.1%) |
Education level | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Primary school | 2 (2.5%) | 6 (6.6%) | 10 (9.8%) | 18 (6.6%) |
Middle school | 9 (11.25%) | 28 (30.8%) | 21(20.6%) | 58 (21.2%) |
High school | 9 (11.25%) | 12 (13.2%) | 26 (25.5%) | 47 (17.2%) |
Technical school | 5 (6.25%) | 9 (9.9%) | 13 (12.7%) | 27 (9.9%) |
College diploma or degree | 11 (13.75%) | 15 (16.5%) | 16 (15.7%) | 42 (15.4%) |
University degree or above | 44 (55.00%) | 20 (22.0%) | 15 (14.7%) | 79 (28.9%) |
Other | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (1.0%) | 2 (0.7%) |
Occupation: | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Worker | 10 (12.5%) | 18 (19.8%) | 22 (21.6%) | 50 (18.3%) |
Farmer | 2 (2.5%) | 8 (8.8%) | 10 (9.8%) | 20 (7.3%) |
Professionals | 32 (40.0%) | 21 (23.1%) | 12 (11.8%) | 65 (23.8%) |
Student | 19 (23.8%) | 13 (14.3%) | 7 (6.9%) | 39 (14.3%) |
Unemployed | 4 (5.0%) | 4 (4.4%) | 14 (13.7%) | 22 (8.1%) |
Other | 11 (13.8%) | 25 (27.5%) | 33 (32.4%) | 69 (25.3%) |
Missing | 2 (2.5%) | 2 (2.2%) | 4 (3.9%) | 8 (2.9%) |
Living Arrangements: | Â | Â | Â | Â |
City | 62 (77.5) | 51 (56.0%) | 56 (54.9%) | 169 (61.9%) |
County | 4 (5.0%) | 14 (15.4%) | 14 (13.7%) | 32 (11.7%) |
Town | 1 (1.3%) | 10 (11.0%) | 13 (12.7%) | 24 (8.8%) |
Rural area | 13 (16.3%) | 14 (15.4%) | 16 (15.7%) | 43 (15.8%) |
Missing | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (2.2%) | 3 (2.9%) | 5 (1.8%) |
Self-reported health status: | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Very poor | 0 (0.0) | 2 (2.2%) | 12 (11.8%) | 14 (5.1%) |
Poor | 3 (3.8%) | 15 (16.5%) | 26 (25.5%) | 44 (16.1%) |
Neither poor nor good | 20 (25.0%) | 40 (44.0%) | 38 (37.3%) | 98 (35.9%) |
Good | 48 (60.0%) | 30 (33.0%) | 22 (21.6%) | 100 (36.6%) |
Very good | 8 (10.0%) | 4 (4.4%) | 4 (3.9%) | 16 (5.9%) |
Missing | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.4%) |