Relationship between Self-Reported Neighborhood Safety and Happiness and Life Satisfaction among Women in Low-Middle Income Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measures related to subjective well-being such as perceived happiness and life satisfaction are becoming increasingly popular among health researchers due to their strong correlation with longevity and all-cause mortality. Previous studies have focused on the role of environmental safety on female empowerment. However, not much is known about the impact of environmental risk factors such as perceived safety on subjective well-being, especially in the low-middle-income countries (LMICs). The present study aims to investigate the association between self-reported safety and self-reported happiness and life satisfaction among women in selected LMICs in Asia and Africa. Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional data from eleven countries on 186,388 women aged 15–49 years from the sixth round of the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey. The outcome measures were self-reported happiness and life satisfaction, and their associations with the safety indicators (i.e., feeling unsafe in the neighborhood and at home) were calculated using generalized ordered logit models by adjusting for relevant sociodemographic factors. Results: The highest percentage of feeling very unsafe both in the neighborhood (39.3%) and at home (26.5%) was reported in Iraq, while Tonga had the highest percentage of reporting both feeling very safe in the neighborhood (55.3%) and at home (54.9%). The odds of self-reported worsening life satisfaction were higher among women who reported feeling very unsafe in the neighborhood [OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.36,1.50] and at home [OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.08,1.19]. Feeling of being very unsafe in the neighborhood [OR = 1.16, 95% CI = 1.10,1.22] and at home [OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.57,1.74] also showed strong positive association with self-reported unhappiness. Conclusions: Our findings from eleven LMICs across Asia and Africa indicate that lack of environmental safety may negatively impact subjective well-being among women. Further research is necessary to explore the root causes of insecurity and design intervention programs aiming to promote women’s psychosocial health and well-being.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".