Open Access

Well-being and associated factors among adults in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes201614:122

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0519-2

Received: 31 March 2016

Accepted: 5 August 2016

Published: 30 August 2016

Abstract

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) incorporated well-being into its definition of health in 1948. The significance given to this concept is due to its role in the assessment of people’s quality of life and health.

Methods

Using the WHO Well-being Index, we estimated well-being among adults and identified selected associated factors in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) using data obtained from the National Time Use Survey conducted by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) 2012–2013 on a representative sample of persons living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted among participants 18 years old and above. Multivariate analysis (Regression) was performed with factors found significant in cross-tabulations, using SPSS® version 20.

Results

Overall, 33.8 % (2395) of respondents reported low levels of well-being (ill-being). Neither age, nor sex, nor region were found significant in regression analysis. People who were married, working 15 h or more, with a higher standard of living, who reported participating in community, cultural, and social events, or in religious activities reported high levels of well-being. Those who reported regularly following the mass media, or living in Palestinian refugee camps reported low levels of wellbeing.

Conclusions

Overall, about one-third of adult Palestinians reported low levels of well-being (ill-being), a finding which in itself requires attention. Marriage, employment, high living standards, community participation, and religious activities were found to be protective against ill-being. Further investigations are required to determine additional causes of ill-being in the oPt, taking into consideration the possible effects of chronic exposure to political violence on subjective well-being.

Keywords

Well-beingStandard of livingCommunity participationReligious activitiesPalestine

Background

Well-being is a broad, complex phenomenon, that can be defined as “peoples’ positive evaluations of their lives” [1]. In 1948, well-being was incorporated into the broad definition of health that encompassed “complete physical, mental, and social well-being” [2]. Recently, well-being has received increasing attention from epidemiologists, economists, psychologists, behavioral and social scientists, philosophers, policy makers, and has even become a part of public policy discourse [37].

Subjective well-being consists of two main components: cognitive and affective [8]. The cognitive element is related to evaluation and judgment of people of their own lives including aspects such as work satisfaction, and life satisfaction; that is, specifically chosen criteria assessing the quality of life of persons [3]. The affective dimension deals with moods, feelings, and emotions [9]. The latter dimension entails two main elements: positive emotions like happiness, affection, joy, giving rise to pleasant feelings and a positive mood; and negative emotions like sadness, anger, stress, which are responsible for negative mood, and unpleasant feelings [6, 10].

Subjective well-being is affected by both internal as well as external factors [4]. Indeed, researches indicate that genetic factors, the early environment where people grow up, personality (e.g., optimism, intelligence), demographic factors (age, sex, education, marital status, and employment), social factors (social capital, social networks, social security, type of the government, presence of law, income inequality among people, religious activities, freedom, and human rights), socioeconomic conditions (people ranking within the society), and health status have an important impact on well-being [6, 8].

In the Palestinian context, the protracted warlike conditions with periods of acute intensification have been endured by Palestinians for almost a century, with chronic exposure to political violence adding to the burdens of people’s daily lives. To be sure, the lack of political stability deters sustainable economic development, a necessary aspect affecting the wellbeing of the population [11]. In addition, restrictions on the freedom of movement, human rights violations, inability to fulfill material needs, fragmentation of health services, and economic instability are likely to prevail at the time of wars and conflict, and can negatively affect well-being and life quality [12, 13].

This study aimed to assess the levels of well-being/ ill-being in Palestine using data from the National Time Use Survey collected by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics in 2012–2013, and to identify factors associated with well-being/ill-being among adult Palestinians. We hypothesize that prevalence of ill-being in the occupied Palestine territory is relatively high.

Method

The sample contained in the National Time Use Survey 2012–2013 covered all 16 governorates of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and urban, rural and refugee camp locales, and is representative of all of the population 10 years or more. A total of 5903 households were included in the survey. The response rate was 79.6 %. The questionnaire was filled by 8560 respondents [14].

Measures

For this paper, we built two scales: Well-being and standard of living. The Well-being scale is composed of five questions (Appendix) contained in the World Health Organization’s Well-Being index [15]. This scale has been validated, translated to many languages, and used in studies in different countries [16]. Reliability and consistency were checked, Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.81, which indicates very good internal consistency/reliability. A six-point scale (1 = Always, 2 = More than often, 3 = Slightly more than half the time, 4 = Slightly less than half the time, 5 = A little bit of time, 6 = No, never) was used. Answers were recoded from 0 (no, never) to 5 (always). The scale was multiplied by 4 to obtain a 100-point scale. Then it was recoded into two categories: low levels of well-being (ill-being), and moderate to high levels of well-being, using 0.5 as the cutoff point, since it is commonly used in the literature, in practice, and recommended internationally [17].

The Standard of Living scale included ten items (Appendix) or household assets. The items were (private car, satellite TV, solar heating of water, vacuum cleaner, home library, PC, Palestinian internet services line, microwave, DVD player, and air condition). Reliability and consistency were checked, and Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.74, which indicates good internal consistency/reliability, with 0 (no), and 1 (yes) reported included. The scale was then recoded into low standard of living (having two item or less), medium standard of living (having 3 to 6 items), and high standard of living (having seven items or more) in a distribution similar to those reported by PCBS [18].

Statistical analysis

Data were checked for accuracy, and cleanliness. Data analysis was performed using questionnaires completed by adults 18 years and above to avoid likely errors that may occur in some of the independent variables such as marriage, and labor status. Well-being was used as the dependent variable. Independent variables included demographic factors (age, sex, marital status), labor/employment status, standard of living, community participation, religious activities, use of the mass media, region, and type of locality. Descriptive statistics was completed for all the independent variables. Bivariate analysis was then conducted to assess the association of the independent variables with well-being, using the Chi Square test. Binary logistic regression was completed with independent variables found significant in the bivariate analysis. Regression results were confirmed with One-way ANOVA and linear regression, with no major differences found between linear regression and logistic regression analyses. The analysis was carried out using SPSS® version 20.

Results

Table 1 contains respondent demographic characteristics. A total of 7080 individuals aged 18–99 years were included in data analysis. 44.9 % of respondents were males, and 55.1 % were females. Mean age was 37.27 (SD = 15.11). 38.4 % of respondents were young adults aged 18–29 years. 76.3 % were married. 40.8 % were working 15 h or more per week. 17.9 % had with a high standard of living. 8.4 % of respondents participated in community, social, and cultural events. 78.3 % of respondents attended or participated in religious activities or joined religious groups. 83.4 % of respondents regularly followed the mass media. 19.0 % were rural residents.
Table 1

Respondent demographic characteristics characteristics

Item

Number (n)

Percentage (%)

Sex

 Male

3176

44.9

 Female

3904

55.1

Age groups

 18–29

2716

38.4

 30–39

1772

25.0

 40–49

1121

15.8

 50–59

765

10.8

 60 and above

706

10.0

Marital status

 Married

5399

76.3

 Not married

1301

18.3

 Widowed, divorced or separated

380

5.4

Labor status

 Working 15 h or more.

2891

40.8

 Household work

2721

38.4

 Do not work

1468

20.7

Standard of living

 Low

2284

32.3

 Medium

3530

49.8

 High

1266

17.9

Community participation

595

8.4

Performed religious activities

5547

78.3

Follow up mass media

5906

83.4

Type of locality

 Urban

5001

70.6

 Rural

1342

19.0

 Camp

737

10.4

Region

 West Bank

4686

66.2

 Gaza Strip

2394

33.8

33.8 % of respondents reported low levels of well-being (ill-being) with a mean level of 58.0 (on a scale from 0 to 100, Table 2). No significant differences in well-being were observed by sex. 33.8 % of respondents aged 18–29 years reported low levels of well-being compared to 37.4 % among respondents aged 60 years and above (p < .05). 33.0 % of married respondents reported low levels of wellbeing compared to 41.6 % of widowed, divorced or separated (p < .05). 31.2 % of respondents who work 15 h or more per week reported low levels of well-being compared 37.8 % of respondents who do not work (p < .05). 41.6 % of respondents with low standards of living reported low levels of well-being compared to 25.2 % among respondents with high standards of living (p < .05). 28.4 % of respondents who participate in community, cultural, and social events reported low levels of well-being compared to 34.3 % of respondents who do not participate (p < .05). 33.1 % of respondents who participate in religious activities reported low levels of well-being compared to 36.5 % of those who do not participate (p < .05). 34.4 % of respondents who regularly follow the mass media reported low levels of well-being compared to 31.1 % of those who do not follow (p < .05). 30.6 % of rural residents reported low levels of well-being compared to 38.8 % of refugee camp residents (p < .05).
Table 2

Association of well-being with the independent variables

Variable name (n)

Low levels of well-being (%)

Moderate to high levels of well-being (%)

Chi square P-value

Well-being (7080)

33.8

66.2

 

Age groups

 18–29 (2716)

33.8

66.2

 

 30–39 (1772)

35.7

64.3

.004

 40–49 (1121)

31.5

68.5

 

 50–59 (765)

29.8

70.2

 

 60 and above (706)

37.4

62.6

 

Marital status

 Married (5399)

33.0

67.0

 

 Not married (1301)

35.1

64.9

.002

 Widowed, divorced or separated (380)

41.6

58.4

 

Labor status

 Working 15 h or more (2891)

31.2

68.8

.000

 Household worker (2721)

34.4

65.6

 

 Don’t work (1468)

37.8

62.2

 

Standard of living

 Low (2284)

41.6

58.4

 

 Medium (3530)

31.9

68.1

.000

 High (1266)

25.2

74.8

 

Community participation

 Yes (595)

28.4

71.6

.002

 No (6485)

34.3

65.7

 

Attend religious activities

 Yes (5547)

33.1

66.9

.006

 No (1533)

36.5

63.5

 

Follow up mass media

 Yes (5906)

34.4

65.6

.016

 No (1174)

31.1

68.9

 

Type of locality

   

 Urban (5001)

34.0

66.0

 

 Rural (1342)

30.6

69.4

.001

 Camp (737)

38.8

61.2

 

Region

 West Bank (4686)

32.4

67.6

.000

 Gaza Strip (2394)

36.7

63.3

 
Table 3 shows the results of multivariate binary logistic regression with Well-being used as the dependent variable. The results indicate that those widowed, divorced, or separated were more likely to report low levels of well-being compared to those married [OR = 0.76, 95 % CI (0.60–0.96)]. Respondents who reported that they did not work were more likely to report low levels of well-being compared to respondents working 15 h or more per week [OR = 0.78, 95 % CI (0.67–0.91)]. people with high standard of living were more likely to report high levels of well-being compared to people with low standards of living [OR = 2.10, 95 % CI (1.80–2.46)]. Respondents who reported that they participate in community, cultural, and social events were more likely to report high levels of well-being compared to those who do not participate [OR = 1.27, 95 % CI (1.05–1.54)]. Respondents who reported not regularly following up the mass media were more likely to report high levels of well-being compared to those who regularly followed [OR = 1.18, 95 % CI (1.03–1.36)]. Residents of rural areas were more likely to report high levels of well-being compared to people living in Palestinian refugee camps [OR = 1.35, 95 % CI (1.11–1.60)].
Table 3

Multivariate binary logistic regression for well-being among Palestinian population

Variablea

 

P value

Adjusted OR

95 % C.I. for OR

Lower

Upper

Marital status

Married

1

   

Not married

0.18

0.90

0.78

1.05

Widowed, divorced or separated

0.02

0.76

0.60

0.96

Labor status/Working

Working 15 h or more

1

   

Household worker

0.11

0.87

0.73

1.03

Do not work

0.00

0.78

0.67

0.91

Standard of living

Low

1

   

Medium

0.00

1.51

1.35

1.69

High

0.00

2.10

1.80

2.46

Community participation

 

0.01

1.27

1.05

1.54

Religious activities

 

0.00

1.25

1.10

1.42

Mass media

 

0.02

1.18

1.03

1.36

Type of locality

Camp

1

   

Urban

0.08

1.16

0.98

1.36

Rural

0.00

1.35

1.11

1.60

aVariables entered into the model include: Age, sex, marital status, Labor status, standard of living, community participation, religious activities, mass media, and type of locality

Discussion

In this study, we measured the prevalence of well-being using a representative sample of the adult Palestinian population, and investigated the effects of selected demographic and socio-economic factors on wellbeing. Overall, 33.8 % of the respondents reported low levels of well-being (ill-being).

The study found no effects of age on well-being. This finding is supported by findings from other studies [19]. Indeed, a meta-analysis of 119 studies conducted before 1980 for age and well-being found that the correlation between age and well-being is close to zero, and that age cannot explain more than 1 % of the total variance [20]. The stability of life satisfaction could be explained by the ability of people to adapt themselves to the process of aging and to change their goals and aspirations to suit their situation across their life span [4].

This study showed no differences in subjective well-being between the sexes. This finding is supported by the literature with several large scale surveys finding little evidence of gender differences in subjective well-being [21]. In fact, a meta-analysis of 300 empirical surveys conducted in various parts of the world provided little evidence of gender differences in subjective well-being [22]. Although some studies showed higher levels of well-being among men, and some others among women [6], the differences detected were always small [23].

The widowed, divorced, or separated respondents were found to be less likely to report high levels of well-being compared to married respondents. Interestingly, marriage -as reported by many large scale studies- is one of the most important predictors of subjective well-being even when other variables such as education and income were controlled for [24]. The positive impact of marriage on subjective well-being could be explained by the fact that marriage provides people with some sort of social support, neutralizes daily stressors, gives people a sense of belonging and purpose, and can leads to social integration [25].

Respondents who reported not working were less likely to report high levels of well-being compared to respondents working 15 h or more per week. This finding is supported by findings of other studies with the unemployed found to be the least happy sector of the society even when other variables were controlled for [23]. Indeed, some researchers found that unemployment does not allow people to achieve prosperity and develop their potentials [26]. Furthermore, working a job is noted as resulting in a better social contact, gives people resources, respect and value within the society [4].

Respondent Standard of Living were found to be strongly associated with well-being. Respondents with high Standards of Living were 2.1 times as likely to report high levels of well-being compared to people with low Standards of Living. This finding is consistent with other studies which revealed better levels of well-being among people with higher socioeconomic status [27]. Recently, Standard of Living has been increasingly used instead of income to assess levels of well-being [28]. Higher Standard of Living is understood to mean higher financial satisfaction, better quality of health services and goods, better education, housing, safety, material prosperity, greater optimism, and social and political freedom [29, 30], all of which assist in buffering stress, leading to comfort, prevalence of positive emotions, and physical as well as mental satisfaction.

Respondents who reported participating in community, cultural, and social events were 1.3 times as likely to report high levels of well-being compared to those who reported not participating. This finding is consistent with the literature that showed some positive impact of participation in social activities on subjective well-being [23]. In fact, research in this field indicates that social contact increases happiness and well-being, and changes in social contact can cause a subsequent change in well-being, even when socioeconomic and other health related variables were controlled for [30]. The reason behind this could be attributed to role of community participation in empowering people, and break their isolation [31]. Furthermore, social interactions give people a positive sense of belonging, meaning, and social identity [32].

People who reported attending or participating in religious activities were 1.3 times as likely to report high levels of well-being compared to those who reported not participating in such activities. This finding emphasizes findings of other studies which indicate that religious people tend to have better levels of well-being compared to non-religious individuals [27]. In 2003, Clark and Lelkes reported that the positive influence of religion on subjective well-being could be attributed to capacity of religion as a potential resource to neutralize daily stressors like low income, sad events, or unemployment [1]. Also, it is believed that religious practices give some sort of social support, feeling of inclusion, increases social contact, and promotes peoples’ healthy life style [33].

Respondents who do not regularly follow the mass media were 1.2 times as likely to have high levels of well-being compared to those who regularly follow. The mass media has a great influence on peoples’ culture and norms [34]. Indeed, the media was found to affect people’s values, behaviors, beliefs, and alters their perception on the economy, culture and policy [35]. It was reported to cause some drawbacks on society such as promoting violence, aggressive behaviors, harmful advertisement such as advertising for tobacco and alcohol consumption that negatively affect peoples’ choice, behavior, physical as well as mental health, leading eventually to decrease levels of population well-being [36].

Residents of rural areas were 1.4 as likely to have high levels of well-being compared to people living in refugee camps. This finding is supported by findings of other research [37]. The literature indicated that living in camp localities is associated with higher levels of psychological distress among refugees, which could be attributed to threats to personal and family safety, restricted economic opportunities, poor housing conditions, lack of food security, great poverty [38, 39], and overcrowded places [40].

The mean level of subjective well-being found in this study was 58.0, lower than the mean score reported for Denmark (after converting the scale from 25 to 100 for comparison purposes) where the mean score in a population study was 70.0; and comparable to what was reported for Lithuania at 58.2, and slightly better than Latvia at 56.2 [41]. Overall, this study reveals low levels of well-being among the Palestinian population requiring future attention.

Conclusions

A considerable proportion of the Palestinian population reported low levels of well-being, a finding which supports our hypothesis. Interestingly, the universal factors which were found to influence well-being in several parts of the world were also found to be of influence in the Palestinian context. The study demonstrates that employment, marriage, high standards of living, community participation, and participation in religious activities are protective against ill-being. On the other hand, following the mass media on a regular basis, and living in camp localities are likely to be risk factors for ill-being.

Policy makers need to pay more attention to the concept, its’ measurement, and its’ application in population research, and struggle to improve life circumstances which positively enhance well-being. Those include, inter alia, quality education which enables individuals to find employment, improvement of income accompanied by good quality services, material prosperity, good housing, quality health services, community participation and feeling of inclusion, good governance, freedom of choice, and democracy.

Study limitations

This is a cross sectional study, and cannot establish causation; only associations with well-being can be ascertained as a result. In addition, contextual factors like political instability, and siege conditions which affect both physical as well as mental health of the population were not investigated.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

None.

Funding

None.

Availability of data and material

Data related to this paper is available from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics.

Authors’ contributions

NH prepared the literature review, participated in writing the methodology, data analysis, paper writing and editing. LZ participated in writing of the methodology and data analysis. Rula Ghandour participated in data analysis and presentation. Rita Giacaman participated in the conceptualization of the paper along with NH, in paper editing in addition to supervision of the whole work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

None as manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data in any form.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

According to the Birzeit University Research Ethics Guidelines, no ethical approval was required as the paper uses data already collected by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics, and did not contain any personal identifiers of any sort.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
(2)
UNRWA
(3)
Institute of Community and Public Health, Birzeit University

References

  1. Diener E, Seligman MEP. Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2004;5(1):1–31. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00501001.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. World Health Organization. WHO Constitution. 1948. http://www.who.int/governance/eb/who_constitution_en.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2016.Google Scholar
  3. Hervás G, Vázquez C. Construction and validation of a measure of integrative well-being in seven languages: The Pemberton Happiness Index. Health Qual Life Out. 2013;11(1):66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Diener E, Suh EM, Lucas RE, Smith HL. Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychol Bull. 1999;125(2):276–302. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.125.2.276.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Taggart F, Friede T, Weich S, Clarke A, Johnson M, Stewart-Brown S. Cross cultural evaluation of the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS) -a mixed methods study. Health Qual Life Out. 2013;11(1):27.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Huppert FA. Psychological well-being: Evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2009;1(2):137–64. doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2009.01008.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. La Placa V, Knight A. Well-being: Its influence and local impact on public health. Public Health. 2014;128(1):38–42. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2013.09.017.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Ryff CD, Keyes CLM. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995;69(4):719–27. doi:10.1037/00223514.69.4.719.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Diener E, Lucas RE, Oishi S. Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In: Snyder CR, Lopez SJ, editors. Handbook of positive psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002. p. 63–73.Google Scholar
  10. Kahneman D, Deaton A. High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(38):16489–93. doi:10.1073/pnas.1011492107.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Falah G. Dynamics and patterns of the shrinking of Arab lands in Palestine. Polit Geogr. 2003;22(2):179–209. doi:10.1016/S0962-6298(02)00088-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Batniji R, Rabaia Y, Nguyen-Gillham V, Giacaman R, Sarraj E, Punamaki RL, et al. Health as human security in the occupied Palestinian territory. Lancet. 2009;373(9669):1133–43. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60110-0.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Kondylis F. Conflict displacement and labor market outcomes in post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina. J Dev Econ. 2010;93(2):235–48. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2009.10.004.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Time use survey, 2012/2013 User’s Guide. Ramallah: Methodology and data quality; 2014.Google Scholar
  15. Sibai AM, Chaaya M, Tohme RA, Mahfoud Z, Alamin H. Validation of the Arabic version of the 5-item WHO Well being index in elderly population. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009;24(1):106–7. doi:10.1002/gps.2079.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Topp CW, Østergaard SD, Søndergaard S, Bech P. The WHO-5 well-being index: A systematic review of the literature. Psychother Psychosom. 2015;84(3):167–76. doi:10.1159/000376585.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. World Health Organisation. Well-being measures in primary health care/The Depcare project. Stockholm: WHO, Regional Office for Europe; 1998. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/130750/E60246.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2016.Google Scholar
  18. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. The Household Expenditure and Consumption Survey (PECS) -2007. Ramallah: Press Conference on the Main Findings; 2008.Google Scholar
  19. Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull. 1984;95(3):542–75. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Stock WA, Okun MA, Haring MJ, Witter RA. Age and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis. In: Light RJ, editor. Evaluation studies: Review annual. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1983. p. 279–302.Google Scholar
  21. Helliwell JF. How’s life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-being. Econ Model. 2003;20(2):331–60. doi:10.1016/S0264-9993(02)00057-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Pinquart M, Sorensen S. Gender differences in self-concept and psychological well-being in old age: A meta-analysis. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2001;56(4):195–213. doi:10.1093/geronb/56.4.p195.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Campbell A, Converse PE, Rodgers WL. The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage; 1976.Google Scholar
  24. Glenn ND, Weaver CN. A note on family situation and global happiness. Soc Forces. 1979;57(3):960–7. doi:10.1093/sf/57.3.960.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Shapiro A, Keyes CLM. Marital status and social well-being: Are the married always better off? Soc Indic Res. 2007;88(2):329–46. doi:10.1007/s11205-007-9194-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Huppert FA, Whittington JE. Evidence for the independence of positive and negative well-being: Implications for quality of life assessment. Br J Health Psychol. 2003;8(1):107–22. doi:10.1348/135910703762879246.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Dolan P, Peasgood T, White M. Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. J Econ Psychol. 2008;29(1):94–122. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman D, Krueger AB. Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. J Econ Perspect. 2006;20(1):3–24. doi:10.1257/089533006776526030.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Baikova YI, Vardiashvili NN. To the problem of rise in the standard of living of population. Asian Soc Sci. 2015;11(6):45–55. doi:10.5539/ass.v11n6p45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Bradburn NM. The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine; 1969.Google Scholar
  31. Christens BD. Targeting empowerment in community development: A community psychology approach to enhancing local power and well-being. Community Dev J. 2012;47(4):538–54. doi:10.1093/cdj/bss031.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Haslam SA, Jetten J, Postmes T, Haslam C. Social identity, health and well-being: An emerging agenda for applied psychology. Appl Psychol Int Rev. 2009;58(1):1–23. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00379.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Ellison CG. Religious involvement and subjective well-being. J Health Soc Behav. 1991;32(1):80–99. doi:10.2307/2136801.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Akbar MW. Cultural invasion of western media and Muslim societies. Global Media Journal: Pakistan edition. 2009;2(2). http://www.aiou.edu.pk/gmj/CULTURAL%20INVASION%20OF%20WESTERN%20MEDIA%20AND%20MUSLIM%20SOCIETIES-4.asp. Accessed 25 Mar 2016.
  35. Khan AY, Razi A, Mirza R, Mazhar S, Amjad A, Shafique U. Impact of mass media in Pakistan on social, ethical, and economic grounds. Int J Eco Res. 2013;4(3):1–20.Google Scholar
  36. Mehraj HK, Bhat AN, Mehraj HR. Impacts of media on society: A sociological perspective. Inter J Humanit Soc Sci Invent. 2014;3(6):56–64.Google Scholar
  37. Habib RR, Basma SH, Yeretzian JS. Harboring illnesses: On the association between disease and living conditions in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon. Int J Environ Health Res. 2006;16(2):99–111. doi:10.1080/09603120500538341.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Alnsour J, Meaton J. Housing conditions in Palestinian refugee camps, Jordan. Cities. 2014;36:65–73. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.10.002.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Khawaja M. Migration and the reproduction of poverty: The refugee camps in Jordan. Int Migr. 2003;41(2):27–57. doi:10.1111/1468-2435.00234.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Giacaman R, Mataria A, Nguyen-Gilham V, Safieh RA, Stefanini A, Chatterji S. Quality of life in the Palestinian context: An inquiry in war-like conditions. Health Policy. 2007;81(1):68–84. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.05.011.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Quality of life in Europe: Subjective well-being. Dublin: Author; 2013.Google Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement