MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE IN FULL-TIME JOBS DIFFER IN THEIR LEVELS OF MENTAL HEALTH.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to test the hypothesis that there is a difference in levels of mental health in both, men and women, who are in full-time employment.
For this research we used population sample of 58 people, 2 male and 56 females. The chi-test was applied to test the theory. Due to limited number of male in this study the findings are not conclusive and the result for this research report is invalid.
A background research on the issues of mental health have provided some findings that could have been tested against the hypothesis. On the basis of the available research some recommendations for future actions have been identified.
INTRODUCTION
Mental health problems will affect both women and men, but not in the same way. It has been reported that at any given time, 10% of mothers and 6% of fathers in the UK have mental health issues (‘Mental health statistics’, 2015).
It is difficult to measure the significance that work has on a person’s self-esteem, social recognition or their identity, although many health professionals make the link between the workplace environment and the impact it has on individual’s mental state. The place of work is one of the key contributing factors that affect our health and mental wellbeing.
Social pressures put women’s mental health problems at a greater risk than men.
The sample population will test the hypothesis, that men and women in full-time employment differ in their level of mental health.
Part-time workers are beyond the scope of this project.
LITERATURE SURVEY
The research paper which I consulted my finding on was published in November 2018, by The Work Foundation “Men’s mental health and work. The case for a gendered approach to policy”. The review filled out gaps in my own research.
The Work Foundation takes the lead when it comes to provide policy advice and analysis in the UK. Through its comprehensive research programmes aiming at organisations, present and future trends, countries, cities and economies they are able to provide an evidence-based recommendations.
METHODS
Context
The data is part of a larger dataset collected by researchers at Birkbeck College to investigate the effects of having a young family on the working lives of parents.
Procedure
Parents and parents-to-be were contacted via workplaces and nurseries and invited to complete a paper questionnaire.
Ethics
The participants were informed of the purpose of the study and assured that their responses would be confidential and they could choose to withdraw from the project at any time. Opportunities were provided for the participants to ask questions about the study and receive feedback on the findings.
Measures used in the study
We used 12 general health questions and scoring method from 1 to 4, in which high score indicated worse mental health ( Appendix 1). Sample size of full-time works in this research was in total 58. In that sample we had 2 men and 56 women. 10 of the 56 women reported missing data, which put the number of women tested in this report to 46.
We used Chi-test to conduct this research.
RESULTS
The results from the population sample where organised into a table of raw data shown in Appendix 2. Summery has been given in Table 1.
Table 1. Means and standard deviation of mental health levels for male and female in full-time employment
| Male | Female | |
| Mean GHO | 2.500 | 2.5023 |
| SD GHO | 0.23570 | 0.38144 |
*GHO- mental health data score (General Health Questionnaire-Appendix 1)
Due to limited sample size of men in this study (2 out of 48) the results are inconclusive.
DISCUSSION
Men in comparisons to women, are less likely to ask for professional help or discuss they concerns when it comes to mental health issues. They are also more likely to partake in unhealthy behaviours from alcohol and drug abuse, to more tragic affects ending in suicide. Women, on the other hand, are still expected to be full-time mother and primary caregivers even if they work outside of the house.
The roles, responsibilities, and expectations that both genders carry in professional life, are one of the major mental health factor that can contribute to common conditions such as anxiety, mild depression or stress, to more severe and long-term mental illnesses.
The difference how mental-health is experienced and managed, by male and female, will required modification in approach when providing the needed support. One of the big challenges when addressing men’s mental illness comes down to being criminalised due to substance abuse, alcohol and/or drug, and often accompanied by violence.
The recommendations below draw some examples as to how we can promote and improve on mental health approach and promote de-stigmatisation of the mental ill issue.
CONCLUSION
New research is needed to fully understand the reason for disproportional effects of suicide on men and women in the UK. Such evidence-based research would be beneficial and it can help high-risk groups to be identified and supported as needed.
There is also lack of differentiation in support provided by gender. As both sexes need a different approach to the issue of mental health this should be priorities to fully understand the best possible outcome by gender.
REFERENCES
- bitcmental_health_at_work_report-2017.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://wellbeing.bitc.org.uk/system/files/research/bitcmental_health_at_work_report-2017.pdf
- mens_mental_health_work.pdf. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.theworkfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/mens_mental_health_work.pdf
- Mental health statistics: men and women. (2015, October 26). Retrieved 20 February 2019, from https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/statistics/mental-health-statistics-men-and-women
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1
| General Health Questionnaire 12 Items and Scoring* | |||||
| Have you recently….. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 1 – | been able to concentrate on whatever you’re doing? | More than usual | Same | Less than usual | Much less than usual |
| 2 – | lost much sleep over worry? | Much less than usual | Less than usual | Same | More than usual |
| 3 – | felt that you are playing a useful part in things? | More than usual | Same | Less than usual | Much less than usual |
| 4 – | felt capable of making decisions about things? | More than usual | Same | Less than usual | Much less than usual |
| 5 – | felt constantly under strain? | Much less than usual | Less than usual | Same | More than usual |
| 6 – | felt you couldn’t overcome your difficulties? | Much less than usual | Less than usual | Same | More than usual |
| 7 | been able to enjoy your normal day | More than usual | Same | Less than usual | Much less than usual |
| 8 – | been able to face up to your problems? | More than usual | Same | Less than usual | Much less than usual |
| 9 – | been feeling unhappy or depressed? | Much less than usual | Less than usual | Same | More than usual |
| 10 – | been losing confidence in yourself? | Much less than usual | Less than usual | Same | More than usual |
| 11 – | been thinking of yourself as a worthless person? | Much less than usual | Less than usual | Same | More than usual |
| 12 – | been feeling reasonably happy all things considered? | More than usual | Same | Less than usual | Much less than usual |
| *This is not a typical way of scoring the GHQ12, but it is a method that is useful for this exercise
** In this data set, high scores indicate worse mental health |
|||||
APPENDIX 2
| Case Processing Summary | |||||||
| Gender | Cases | ||||||
| Valid | Missing | Total | |||||
| N | Percent | N | Percent | N | Percent | ||
| GHO | male | 2 | 100.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 100.0% |
| female | 46 | 82.1% | 10 | 17.9% | 56 | 100.0% | |
| PTvsFT = 1 (FILTER) | male | 2 | 100.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 100.0% |
| female | 46 | 82.1% | 10 | 17.9% | 56 | 100.0% | |
| Descriptives | |||||
| Gender | Statistic | Std. Error | |||
| GHO | male | Mean | 2.5000 | .16667 | |
| 95% Confidence Interval for Mean | Lower Bound | .3823 | |||
| Upper Bound | 4.6177 | ||||
| 5% Trimmed Mean | . | ||||
| Median | 2.5000 | ||||
| Variance | .056 | ||||
| Std. Deviation | .23570 | ||||
| Minimum | 2.33 | ||||
| Maximum | 2.67 | ||||
| Range | .33 | ||||
| Interquartile Range | . | ||||
| Skewness | . | . | |||
| Kurtosis | . | . | |||
| female | Mean | 2.5023 | .05624 | ||
| 95% Confidence Interval for Mean | Lower Bound | 2.3890 | |||
| Upper Bound | 2.6156 | ||||
| 5% Trimmed Mean | 2.5120 | ||||
| Median | 2.4773 | ||||
| Variance | .146 | ||||
| Std. Deviation | .38144 | ||||
| Minimum | 1.25 | ||||
| Maximum | 3.42 | ||||
| Range | 2.17 | ||||
| Interquartile Range | .52 | ||||
| Skewness | -.359 | .350 | |||
| Kurtosis | 1.673 | .688 | |||
| PTvsFT = 1 (FILTER) | male | Mean | 1.00 | .000 | |
| 95% Confidence Interval for Mean | Lower Bound | 1.00 | |||
| Upper Bound | 1.00 | ||||
| 5% Trimmed Mean | 1.00 | ||||
| Median | 1.00 | ||||
| Variance | .000 | ||||
| Std. Deviation | .000 | ||||
| Minimum | 1 | ||||
| Maximum | 1 | ||||
| Range | 0 | ||||
| Interquartile Range | 0 | ||||
| Skewness | . | . | |||
| Kurtosis | . | . | |||
| female | Mean | 1.00 | .000 | ||
| 95% Confidence Interval for Mean | Lower Bound | 1.00 | |||
| Upper Bound | 1.00 | ||||
| 5% Trimmed Mean | 1.00 | ||||
| Median | 1.00 | ||||
| Variance | .000 | ||||
| Std. Deviation | .000 | ||||
| Minimum | 1 | ||||
| Maximum | 1 | ||||
| Range | 0 | ||||
| Interquartile Range | 0 | ||||
| Skewness | . | . | |||
| Kurtosis | . | . | |||
APPENDIX 3
| Case Processing Summary | ||||||
| Cases | ||||||
| Valid | Missing | Total | ||||
| N | Percent | N | Percent | N | Percent | |
| GHO * Gender | 48 | 82.8% | 10 | 17.2% | 58 | 100.0% |
| Chi-Square Tests | |||
| Value | df | Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) | |
| Pearson Chi-Square | 7.930a | 18 | .980 |
| Likelihood Ratio | 6.620 | 18 | .993 |
| Linear-by-Linear Association | .000 | 1 | .993 |
| N of Valid Cases | 48 | ||
| a. 38 cells (100.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .04. |
| Symmetric Measures | |||||
| Value | Asymptotic Standard Errora | Approximate Tb | Approximate Significance | ||
| Nominal by Nominal | Contingency Coefficient | .377 | .980 | ||
| Interval by Interval | Pearson’s R | .001 | .070 | .008 | .993c |
| Ordinal by Ordinal | Spearman Correlation | -.008 | .099 | -.051 | .959c |
| N of Valid Cases | 48 | ||||
| a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. |
| b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. |
| c. Based on normal approximation. |
What Students Are Saying About Us
.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."
"Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!"
