Quality of life among children in the Nordic countries

Abstract

Quality of life (QOL) is a concept with no generally accepted definition. Most clinical studies have had an individual approach where demographic and socio-economic population aspects have not been considered. QOL has hardly ever been used in studies of children. In this study QOL is defined as the essential resources of a child population, expressed in external, inter-personal and personal conditions. Both objective conditions and the corresponding subjective perceptions are included. A model for an empirical application is demonstrated on a random sample of 15,000 children in the five Nordic countries. The data were collected in a questionnaire mailed to the families of the children. The QOL was analysed in a normative way, where a base value was defined for each variable and the conditions of the children were compared to a Nordic standard for children's QOL. The results showed that children in the Nordic countries have a high QOL. The differences between the countries were rather small. Children in Sweden had the highest QOL, closely followed by children in Denmark and Norway, while children in Finland were in an intermediate position and the Icelandic children had the lowest QOL, mainly due to a lower level of satisfaction. This study can be considered as a base line study which later can be used in studies of time trends or in comparisons of groups of children such as children with special needs.

Swedish parents’ activities together with their children and children’s health: A study of children aged 2–17 years

“…It included background questions about the child and its family, the health of the child, the contacts with healthcare, the child's own activities and activities together with the parents, socioeconomic data and the parents' health and well-being. The questionnaire was validated earlier [23][24][25]. The parent, who was most familiar with the child's situation, was instructed to fill in a mailed questionnaire.…”

“…All the items were scaled from 1 to 7, the higher values indicating more qualities. A sum score was counted: The full-scale score thus ranged from 6 to 42 points and was dichotomized as the lowest quartile versus the rest, as an index of well-being (0 = low and 1 = high well-being) [24]. This index was constructed and validated by Lindström [24] as a measure of quality of life and also validated and used by others [26,28].…”

“…The full scale ranged from 6 to 42 for each individual. For analysis this was dichotomized, the sum variable >30=1 as high well-being and the rest =0, low wellbeing [23,24]. Significant differences between age groups 2-6 and 7-12 years: p<0.05, 2-6 and 13-17 years: p<0.001.…”

“…The most common diagnoses were in all years: eczema, an allergy or asthma. Psychosomatic complaints (PSC) also increased by 17.0% in 1984 to 24.2% in 1996 [3]. The corresponding figure in 2011 was 26.6% [4].…”

Quality of life of participants in a mind-body-based self-development course: A descriptive study

“…Thus, it seems appropriate in CAM research, to include more holistic measures, such as quality of life (QOL). Lindstrom [18] suggests that we use QOL as a positive health definition, including environmental and interpersonal dimensions. The health related quality of life (HRQoL) concept has been used in science since the early 1970s, and self-assessment gives predictable, reliable measures.…”