179

Nursing and Midwifery Research Journal, Vol-8, No. 2, April 2012

Correspondence at :
Nitasha Sharma,
Clinical Instructor,
National Institute of Nursing Education,
PGIMER, Chandigarh
A descriptive study to assess 'Quality of life' among non-working
females residing in selected village of Punjab
Nitasha Sharma, Sumandeep Kaur
Abstract :The status of women in India has been studied in various forms. In that matter, the 'quality of
life' is a relatively new concept. Quality of Life (QOL) is seen as the product of the interaction of a number of
social, health, economic and environmental factors. The quality of life is a degree to which a person enjoys the
important possibilities of his/her life. The present study was undertaken to assess the quality of life among
non-working females residing in selected rural area of Punjab. A total of 50 subjects were included in the study
using the convenience sampling technique. A 15 item "Quality of life scale "given by John Flanagan was used
as research measure.The tool gives the overall QOL score and score in five domains: 1) Physical & Material
well-being.2) Relations with other people. 3) Social, community & civic activities.4) Personal Development
and fulfilment. 4) Recreation. The maximum mean score 6.3 was obtained in the item referring to relationship
with parents, siblings and significant others & the lowest mean score was in the item referring to participation
in organisational & public affairs. The maximum per cent score was obtained in domain of relationship, 84%
and minimum score in domain of social, community and civic activity, 51%. The study supports the underlying
conceptualisations about 'Quality of life' as a multidimensional construct. The study also recommends the
need to create more learning experiences for rural non-working women to improve their knowledge and
provide an outlet for creative expression.
Key words :
'Quality of life', 'non- working females'
Introduction
Women- The word sounds so
powerful. Since eternity, women have played
a role more important than men and that is no
exaggeration. India has the worlds largest
number of professionally qualified women.
India has more female doctors, surgeons,
scientists and professors than the United
States. On an average however, women in
India are socially, politically and economically
weaker than men. The reality of womens lives
180
Nursing and Midwifery Research Journal, Vol-8, No. 2, April 2012
remains invisible, and this invisibility persists
at all levels beginning with the family to the
nation.
1
The status of women in any civilization
shows the stage of evolution at which the
civilization has arrived. In ancient India,
women occupied important position in the
society. The Ancient Indian mythol ogy
witnesses that the status of Indian women in
Vedic ages was honourable and respectable.
During that time,women were at par with the
men. There are references, which indicate that
equal social and religious status was allowed
to boys and girls in Vedic society. However in
post- Vedic era and the medieval era, the
status of women deteriorated. In that era
women lost independence and became a
subject for protection. The women were pre-
ordained for procreation only. Due to the
Islamic influence, the social evils like the
Purdah system prevailed in society. The
assumption of superiority of males has built
up the idea of male dominance and female
dependence. These cultural attributes left a
deep impact on the women development in
India.
2
The snapshot of Indi an women
provides some alarming reports.The sex ratio
in rural India depicts 914 females per 1000
males in age group of 0-6years, the state of
Haryana & Punjab being lowest with ratios of
830& 846 per 1000 respectively as per 2011
census.
3
The common reasons for this
disparity can be the social discrimination as
well as the neglect of female child in the
matters of health. The country is undoubtfully
progressing as the Infant Mortality Rate (IMR)
for the country declined by 30 points in last
20 years. However the female infant continues
to experience a higher mortality than a male
infant. Also the under 5 mortality rate shows
decline by 54 points in last 20 years. Although
the male female mor tality differential has
narrowed down over years yet the gap remains
significant. In terms of the total fertility rates,
rural women (TFR 2.9) at National level would
have about one child more than urban
women.(TFR 2.0).
4
There are significant
disparities in terms of literacy rates among
men and women at different settings. The
literacy rate for rural male is 71.48% whereas
that for rural female is only 46.58%. In
absolute numbers, the vast majority of women
who cannot read and write are concentrated
in Asia; illiterate women in this region alone
account for over 77% of the world total
5
Long time back, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru
quoted: You can tell the condition of a nation
by looking at the status of its women. The
statement finds its validity even today.The
status of women can be a better
predictorofa nations general qualityoflife
than GDP.
5
. The status of women in India has
been studied in various forms. The major
indicators to label the status of women in
India are Gender gap variables, Maternal
mortality rates, Overall literacy rate, Infant
mortality rate and the Quality oflifevariables.
Like gender equity, qual i t y of l i f e i s a
relatively new concept in economic thinking.
Quality of Life (QOL) is seen as the product of
the interaction of a number of different factors:
social, health, economic, and environmental
conditions
6
. These factors often in unknown
181
Nursing and Midwifery Research Journal, Vol-8, No. 2, April 2012
ways interact to affect both human and social
development at the level of individuals and
societies.
The term Quality of Life relates to the
description and evaluation of the nature or
conditions of life of people in a certain country
or region. One of the most popular aggregate
measures of the quality of life is the individual
estimation of ones happiness. Happiness
here is defined as the degree to which an
individual judges the overall quality of her/his
life as-a-whole favourably. In the country of
Bhutan, Gross National Happiness (GNH) is
the main index for defining the quality of life
in a more holistic and psychological term. The
quality of life is a degree to which a person
enjoys the important possibilities of his/her
life.
7
The quality of life should not be confused
with the standard of living. The standard
indicators of quality of life include not only
wealth and employment but also the built
environment, physical and mental health,
education, recreation, leisure time and social
belongings.It reflects the difference, the gap,
between the hopes and expectations of
person and their present experience.
The quality of life as an area of research
has attracted an ever increasing amount of
interest over the past two decades. This
interest has increased not only in the area of
rehabilitation, health and social services but
also in areas like medicine, education and
working and non-working persons life.
8
It
was a presumption till late 60s that women
with jobs/ working outside are generally
happier and satisfied as compared to fulltime
housewi ves or non-worki ng women.
However various national surveys have
consistently failed to support this hypothesis
and have reported no significant differences
in terms of life satisfaction in both groups.
9
But
a study by Agarkala reported the significant
difference in the life satisfaction of working
and non-working women. Life-satisfaction
was found to be higher among non-working
women.
10
At same time one of the studies
attempted to examine the self-efficacy and
well-being among working and non-working
women in terms of involvement. The results
reported that the non-working women were
low on both self-efficacy as well as well-being
than the working women.
11
Another study tried
to measure the quality of life among non-
working and working women using indirect
measures like mental health, self-esteem,
mother role satisfaction and stress. The results
revealed that non-working women had poorer
mental health as well as the lower self-esteem
as compared to the working women. The non-
worki ng women al so repor ted more
depression. The most common stressor
repor ted by the non-working women was
poor social life.
12
The family relationship and
the family adjustment are two very crucial
factors predicting the quality of life especially
in women. In that matter one of the studies
examined and compared the relationship
between the marital adjustment, stress and
depression among working and non-working
women. The results revealed that working
married women had to face more marital
problems than the non-working women.
13
In
the present study the quality of life of non-
working females who were residing in
selected village of Punjab was assessed.
182
Nursing and Midwifery Research Journal, Vol-8, No. 2, April 2012
Main Objective
To assess the quality of life among
non-working females residing in selected
village of Punjab.
Materials and methods
The current study had the cross
sectional research design. The study was
conducted in one of the villages in district
Ludhiana, Punjab. The total population of the
village was 1009 with 534 males and 475
females. The total numbers of non-working
females were 234. The sample comprised of
50 females who were selected following the
conveni ent sampl i ng techni que. The
researcher visited the nearest houses and first
fifty women encountered were recruited for
the study. The research tools used was an
interview schedule & the socio demographic
profile sheet which was developed by the
investigator keeping in view the objective of
the study and the standardized Quality of life
scale given by John Flanagan.
14,9
It is a 15
item, seven point rating scale ranging from 7
to 1, following the order as: 7: delighted, 6:
mostly pleased, 5: satisfied,4: mixed, 3: mostly
unsatisfied,2: unhappy &1: terrible. Each
subject was asked to rate her level of
satisfaction or dissatisfaction in reference to
various QOL determinants on this seven point
scale.The tool provides the comprehensive
QOL score as well as the scores in five QOL
domains. The five domains are 1) Physical &
Material well-being.2) Relations with other
people. 3) Social, community & civic activities.
4) Personal Development and fulfilment. 5)
Recreation. The instrument is scored by
summing the items to make a total score. The
higher the score was, the better the Quality of
Life. The score varying from 15-45 denotes
poor QOL, 46-75 corresponds to an average
QOL & a score of 76-105 corresponds to the
better than average QOL. The domain scores
are obtained by summing up the item scores
corresponding to each domain. The tool was
translated into Punjabi and then re-translated
into English. The data was collected after
obtaining the written permission from the
village Sarpanch. The verbal consent was
obtained from each subject. The verbal
assurance was given to each subject in terms
of maintaining the confidentiality of obtained
information. The data was collected using the
personal interviews in which the researcher
read each item of the tool orally and noted
down the respondents answer. The total time
spent on each subject varied from 15-20
minutes. Each subject was individually thanked
and opportunity was provided to each subject
to clarify their doubts if any. The analysis of
data was done using the spss & Microsoft
excel programme employing the tests like
mean and standard deviation.
Results
The socio-demographic profile of the
subjects is shown in table 1 which shows that
30 % of subjects were in the age range of 26-
35 years and another 24 % comprised of the
age group of 36-45 years. In terms of the
educational status, 62 % subjects had
educational level of less than 10
th
standard.
There were only 2% graduate subjects and
another 2 % were post graduate. In terms of
183
Nursing and Midwifery Research Journal, Vol-8, No. 2, April 2012
the type of family, half of the subjects belonged
to joint family and other half to the nuclear
family. In terms of monthly family income,
46% of them had the monthly family income
of less than Rs 3000/- It was only 16 % of
them whose family income was above Rs
9000/-
Table 1 Socio-demographic variables N=50
Socio-demographic variable n(%)
Age (years)
16- 25 9(18)
26-35 15(30)
36-45 12(24)
46-55 10(20)
55 above 4( 8)
Educational status
< 10
th
standard 31(62)
10
th
standard 10(20)
12
th
standard 7(14)
Graduate 1( 2)
Post graduate 1( 2)
Monthly Income (Rs)
< 3000 23(46)
3000-6000 11(22)
6000-9000 8(16)
>9000 8(16)
Type of family
Joint 25(50)
Nuclear 25(50)
Tabl e 2 shows the frequency
distribution of subjects with respect to various
ratings made by them on the 7 point rating
scale. The item for which the maximum
number of subjects (n=30) rated Delighted
was from Domain 2, Item1 i.e. Relationship
with parents, siblings and others. However
the maximum mean score was obtained in the
item 2 of Domain 1 assessing the QOL in
regard to having & rearing children with the
mean score of 6.5. The second highest mean
score was found in item1 of same domain
referring toRelationships with parents,
siblings & other relatives- communicating,
visiting, helping with mean score 6.3. There
were seven subjects who reported Terrible
feelings in regard to the physical health and
fitness as shown in item 2 of Domain 1.In the
domain 3 : Social, community & civic activity,
for item 2, twenty three subjects rated that
they were Unhappy in regard to participation
in organisational & public affairs. In Domain
4,there were only 2 subjects who were
Del i ghted wi th respect to attendi ng
school.The mean scores and the S.D. were
also calculated for each of the five major
domains of QOL as shown in Table 3.
Since the numbers of items on each
domain were variable, hence for the purpose
of comparison, the mean percent scores were
calculated for each domain which are depicted
in table3. The highest mean percent score
was found in the domain of relationship with
score of 84%, showing that the relationship
domain was the major contributor for QOL
among non working women. This was
followed by domain of recreation with mean
percent score of 76%. Physical & material
wellbeing were also important contributors for
QOL wi th mean percent score of
75.5%.However the domai n of soci al ,
community & civic activities had minimum
mean percent scores of 51%.
184
Nursing and Midwifery Research Journal, Vol-8, No. 2, April 2012
Table 2: Frequency distribution of subjects based on rating for each item & Mean Score(S.D.)
for each item
Statements
D
e
l
i
g
h
t
e
d
:
7
n
(
%
)
P
l
e
a
s
e
d
:
6
n
(
%
)
M
o
s
t
l
y
S
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
d
:
5
(
n
(
%
)
M
i
x
e
d
:
4
n
(
%
)
M
o
s
t
l
y
D
i
s
s
a
t
i
s
f
i
e
:
3
n
(
%
)
U
n
h
a
p
p
y
:
2
n
(
%
)
T
e
r
r
i
b
l
e
:
1
n
(
%
)

Mean score
(S.D.)
N=50

Domain 1: Physical & material well being
1.Material comforts home, food,
conveniences, financial security
2. Health: Being physically fit and
vigorous.


14(28)

14(28)


19(38)

12(24)


3(6)

8(16)


12(24)

7(14)


1(2)

1(2)


-

1(2)


1(2)

7(14)


5.6(1.3)

5(2.0)
Domain 2: Relationships
1. Relationships with parents, siblings &
other relatives- communicating, visiting,
helping.
2.Having and rearing children
3.Close relationships with spouse or
significant other
4.Close friends

30(60)


13(26)
10(20)

10(20)

14(28)


26(52)
16(32)

16(32)

3(6)


5(10)
5(10)

5(10)

1(2)


2(4)
3(6)

3(6)

-


1( 2)
11(22)

11(22)

1( 2)


3 (6)
5(10)

5(10)

1(2)


-
-

=

6.3(1.2)


6.5(0.8)
5.7(1.2)

4.9(1.7)
Domain 3: Social, Community & Civic
Activity.
1. Helping and encouraging others,
volunteering, giving advice.
2. Par ticipating in organizations and public
affairs.



11(22)


-



10(20)


-



5(10)


-



12(24)


4(8)



6(12)


15(30)



6(12)


23(46)



-


8(16)



4.8(1.7)


2.3(0.8)
Domain 4: Personal Development &
Fulfilment
1. Learning- attending school, improving
understanding, getting additional
knowledge
2. Understanding yourself - knowing your
assets and limitations - knowing what life
is about
3.Work in home
4.Expressing yourself creatively


2(4)


6(12)


12(24)
7(14)


7(14)


12(24)


17(34)
8(16)


4(8)


15(30)


13(26)
6(12)


6(12)


13(26)


5(10)
8(16)


6(12)


1( 2)


2( 4)
10(20)


18(36)


3( 6)


1( 2)
11(22)


7(14)


-


-
-


3.2(1.8)


5(1.2)


5.6(1.1)
4.2(1.7)
Domain 5: Recreation
Socializing - meeting other people, doing
things, parties, etc.
2. Reading, listening to music, or
observing entertainment.
3. Par ticipating in active recreation

11(22)

5(10)


7(14)

17(34)

26(52)


21(42)

12(24)

8(16)


10(20)

3(6)

6(12)


5(10)

3(6)

3(6)


4(8)

4(8)

2(4)


3(6)

-

-


-

5.3(1.4)

5.3(1.2)


5.2(1.3)
185
Nursing and Midwifery Research Journal, Vol-8, No. 2, April 2012
Table 3: Domain wise Mean Scores (S.D.) and Per cent scores N=50
Domains Mean * Mean percent
score(S.D.) score
1. Physical & Material well Being( 2 items) 10.6 (2.8) 75.5%
2. Relationship (4 items) 23.5 (3.0) 84.0%
3. Social, community & civic activity (2 items) 7.1( 2.1) 51.0%
4. Personal Development & Fulfilment (4 items) 18.0 (3.7) 64.3%
5. Recreation (3 items) 17.5( 3.0) 76.0%
*each items maximum score = 7
Table 4: Frequency Distribution of
Subjects according to QOL total scores
N=50
QOL ( Score range ) No. of subjects (%)
Poor QOL (15-45) 1( 2)
Average QOL (46-75) 24(48)
Better than average( 76-105) 25(50)
On the basis of total score obtained by
each subject, the overall QOL is shown in table
4. As per table 4 the 50% subjects had better
than average QOL, whereas another 48% had
average QOL. There was only one subject with
poor QOL.
Discussion
The Quality of Life is a multi-dimensional
as well as an intangible construct affected by
various physical, psychological, social and
cultural factors. Complying with the multi-
dimensional character of QOL, the current
study was undertaken to assess QOL of non-
working females using a standardized scale.
The scale included the various determinants
of QOL involving physical health, relationship,
social activity, personal development &
recreation. The current study revealed that the
maxi mum mean per cent scores were
obtained in the domain of relationship. This
included the satisfaction in terms of relation
with the spouse, the family members and
close friends. A study by Emilians also
projected the role of family in predicting the
quality of life of its members. The study
revealed the association between the family
functionality and the members Quality Of Life.
The family was found to have a strong
association with global QOL and specifically
the mental well-being and physical well-
being.
15
Thus, the study by Emilians too
supports this finding of the current study.
In the current study the mean score of
5.3 was obtai ned i n i tem referri ng to
materialistic wellbeing which was indirect
measure to assess satisfaction with financial
si tuati on. Al though the maj ori ty of
respondents had family monthly income of
<Rs. 3000/-, despite of that they were mostly
186
Nursing and Midwifery Research Journal, Vol-8, No. 2, April 2012
satisfied in terms of their financial situations.
This particular finding supports the fact that
the quality of life is not merely the measure of
income or the standard of living rather its a
highly complex construct with more complex
conceptualizations and insights. Also this
highly subjective concept cant be measured
by a few objective indices like income.
However a study by Wai, Tsang and Chan in
Hong Kong repor ted that low income is
associated with a worse health related QOL.
16
This further present the idea that QOL
has multiple dimensions, for that matter, the
financial situation is one. And that multiple
dimensions of QOL are interrelated and
influence each other in variable fashion. In
present study the minimal contribution to the
QOL was related to the domain of creative
self-expression and learning. Learning here
refers to attendi ng school , i mprovi ng
understandi ng and getti ng addi ti onal
knowledge. This finding was expected as the
62% of the subj ects had educati onal
qual i fi cati on of bel ow 10
th
cl ass. The
educational attainment and QOL seems to be
positively correlated overtly
17
. This was also
shown by E.Regider et al, wherein they
established a significant association between
level of education and health related QOL.
6
Generally, the relationship between physical
activity and vitality is well documented, but
multiple recent studies have also revealed an
increasingly stronger link between social
interaction and mental & physical wellbeing.
The social and family activities in accordance
with the nature and capacity of a person can
be highly fruitful. The social activity helps to
maintain a sharp mind, increases feeling of
happiness and develop a sense of wellness.
18
Social contact may be as effective as physical
activity in improving mood and QOL. In
present study the social activities which
contributed maximum to the QOL were
meeti ng other peopl e and hel pi ng and
encouraging others. However the QOL was
lowered due to lack of par ticipation in
organizations and public affairs. This particular
finding might be coloured by the cultural and
traditional restrictions imposed on non-
working females. Social par ticipation and
social support networks are paramount to
long term positive outcomes.
The current study recommends the
need to provide more opportunities for rural
women. Educational content for rural women
should be made more relevant to their
par ticular existence and needs. The study
provides the insight to the need for creation
of various learning experiences for rural
women so as to improve their understanding
and make knowledge accessible to them. The
study implicates the need to promote the
acti ve par ti ci pati on of r ural women i n
organi zati ons and publ i c affai rs. The
community health nurse can promote such
activities by providing the rural women a
platform for creative expression in form of
various suppor t groups. The community
health nurse can aid in this process by acting
as a catalyst and a source of information.
More investment in improving the quality of
life of rural women could create a virtuous
circle of better education, improved health
and higher income.
187
Nursing and Midwifery Research Journal, Vol-8, No. 2, April 2012
References:
1. Swayam: Ending violence against
women. The status of women: A reality check.
Facts on inequality and crime against women.
[cited 2011 Oct 23]Available from :http://
www. swayam. i nf o/swayam_gi _l eaf l et _
31mar.pdf
2. Prakash N. Status of women in Indian
Society: Issues & challenges in process of
Empowerment. Proceedings of the 11th
International GASAT Conference; 2003 July 6-11;
Mauritius.
3. Sex ratio in India, 2011 census; 2011 July
17. [cited 2011 Nov]Available from :http://
updateox.com/india/sex-ratio-in-india-2011-
census/
4. Office of the Registrar General, India.
Maternal & Child Mortality and Total Fertility
Rates. Sample Registration System (SRS); 2011
July 7.[cited 2011 Dec] Available from:http://
ce nsusi ndi a. gov. i n/ v i t al _st at i st i cs/
SRS_Bulletins/MMR_release_070711.pdf
5. Bhandari R, Smith FJ. Rural Women in
India: Assessment of Educational Constraints and
the Need for New Educational Approaches.
Journal of Research in Rural Education 1997;13,
3: 183-196
6. Eisler R, Loye D, Norgaard K. Women,
Men, and the Global Quality of Life. Beijing: The
Center for Partnership Studies; 1995.[cited 2012
Jan] Avai l abl e from :http://
www. par t ner shi pway. or g/ l ear n- mor e/
partnership-books/books/women-men-and-the-
global-quality-of-life
7. School of planning and architecture.
Monograph on quality of life indicators. New Delhi
Department of environment planning; 2009:1-
70.[cited 2011 March] Available from http://
www.spaenvi s.ni c.i n/pdfs/monographs/
QOL_FINALE.pdf
8. Wright James D. Are working women
really more satisfied? Evidence from several
national surveys. Journal of Marriage & the Family
1978; 40(2): 301-313.doi:10.2307/350761
9. Surila Agarwala. Life Satisfaction:
Working versus Not Working. 2001 .[cited 2011
July] Available from http://hdl.handle.net/10755/
183562
10. Sahu FM. Rath S. Self-efficacy and
Wellbeing in Working and Non-working Women:
The Moderating Role of Involvement. Psychology
Developing Societies 2003;15(2):187-200.
doi:10.1177/097133360301500205
11. Usha RR, Cooper C, Kerslake H. Working
and non-working mothers: a Comparative study,
Women In Management Review1997; 12 (7): 264
275
12. Hashmi HA, Khurshid M, Hassan I.
Marital adjustment, stress and depression
amongworkingand non working married
Women. Internet Journal of Medical Update
2007;2(1):17-22.
13. Saadat A. Compare Efficiency with
Working and Non Working Women. European
Journal of Scientific Research. 2009: 32(4) :533-
540. [cited 2011 March ]Available from :http://
www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htm
14. Burckhardt CS. The Flanagan Quality of
Life Scale: Evidence of construct validity. Health
Qual Li f e Out comes. 2003; 1: 59.
doi:10.1186/1477-7525-1-59
15. Sanchez ER. et al. Relationships between
quality of life and family function in caregiver.BMC
Family Practice 2011;12,19:19doi:10.1186/
1471-2296-12-19
16. Ko GT, Wai HP, Tsang PC,Chan HC.
Hong Kong men with low incomes have worse
health-related quality of life as judged by SF-36
scores. Hong Kong Med J.2006 Oct;12 (5):351-
4.
17. Velkoff VA. Women Education in India.
Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau
of the census; October 1998. [cited 2012March]
Available from http://www.indiaedu.com/
education-india/women-education.html
18. Siegrist J. Wahrendorf M. Participation
in socially productive activities and quality of life
in early old age: findings from SHARE. Journal of
European Social Policy 2009;19,4: 317-326.
doi:10.1177/1350506809341513