The association of self-reported schoolwork pressure, family factors and self-efficacy with psychosomatic problems

Figures & data

Figure 1. Model of analysis.

Table 1. Participants and non-participants.

	Number of pupils	Number of completed questionnaires	Non-participants n (%)
Entire sample
Total	2220	2004	216 (9.7)
Boys	1083	953	132 (12.2)
Girls	1136	1046	95 (8.4)
School year^a 7
Total	707	656	51 (7.2)
Boys	348	322	26 (7.5)
Girls	359	331	28 (7.8)
School year 8
Total	711	636	75 (10.5)
Boys	349	304	45 (12.9)
Girls	362	328	34 (9.4)
School year 9
Total	802	712	90 (11.2)
Boys	386	325	61 (15.8)
Girls	416	382	34 (8.2)

^aSwedish school year 7 starts at 13 years, year 8 at 14 years and year 9 at 15 years.

Figure 2. Proportions of adolescents categorised as having a higher degree of psychosomatic problems (PSP), and a higher degree of schoolwork pressure (SwP), broken down by sex and school year. Higher degree: 75th–100th percentile. Swedish school year 7 starts at 13 years, year 8 at 14 years and year 9 at 15 years.

Table 2. Multinomial logistic regression of a higher versus lower degree of psychosomatic problems, showing odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI).

Independent variable		Number of observations	Model A OR (CI)	Model B OR (CI)	Model C OR (CI)
School year	9	708	2.57*** (1.90–3.47)	1.52* (1.03–2.26)	1.55* (1.05–2.30)
	8	629	1.31 (0.97–1.77)	0.86 (0.58–1.26)	0.86 (0.58–1.27)
	7	656	1	1	1
Sex	Girl	1043	6.36*** (4.86–8.31)	6.16*** (4.45–8.52)	2.93** (1.57–5.46)
	Boy	950	1	1	1
Schoolwork pressure	Higher degree	547	23.97*** (15.72–36.55)	14.68*** (8.93–24.13)	14.33*** (8.72–23.55)
	Moderate degree	964	4.12*** (2.89–5.86)	3.34*** (2.21–5.03)	3.27*** (2.16–4.93)
	Lower degree	493	1	1	1
Parental unemployment	One or both	201	2.41*** (1.601–3.626)	1.68* (1.02–2.77)	1.71* (1.04–2.82)
	Neither	1518	1	1	1
Family residency	No parent or alone	29	3.52** (1.36–9.11)	7.31** (1.71–31.15)	6.62* (1.56–28.11)
	With a single parent	312	3.17*** (2.25–4.49)	2.66*** (1.70–4.15)	2.74*** (1.75–4.28)
	Mostly with one parent	135	1.74* (1.04–2.92)	1.64 (0.90–3.00)	1.65 (0.90–3.00)
	Alternating residency	254	1.71** (1.16–2.52)	1.61* (1.01–2.56)	1.63* (1.02–2.59)
	With both parents	1248	1	1	1
Self-efficacy	Lower	488	6.99*** (4.82–10.14)	6.20*** (3.91–9.84)	3.28*** (1.73–6.24)
	Moderate	1026	2.69*** (1.98–3.66)	2.30*** (1.57–3.36)	1.26 (0.71–2.23)
	Higher	490	1	1	1
Self-efficacy by sex	Girl with lower	266	–	–	2.94* (1.12–7.72)
	Girl with moderate	543	–	–	2.45* (1.13–5.32)
	Girl with higher	234	–	–	–
	Boy with lower	218	–	–	–
	Boy with moderate	479	–	–	–
	Boy with higher	253	–	–	–
Model fitting criteria	−2 log likelihood (df)		–	1137.56 (24)	1126.93 (28)
Goodness of fit	Chi-squared value for deviance (df)		–	631.55 (610)	620.92 (606)

Note: Model A – single main effect model. Model B – multivariate main effects model including all independent variables. Model C – full model with interaction effect.

***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, df = degrees of freedom.

Table 3. Beta values (B) [log-odds/logits] for the variables in the interaction (model C in Table 3).

Interaction		B sex	B self-efficacy	B interaction sex by self-efficacy	Total B
Sex	Degree of self-efficacy
Girl	Lower	1.07	1.19	1.08	3.34
	Moderate	1.07	0.23	0.90	2.20
	Higher	1.07	0	0	1.07
Boy	Lower	0	1.19	0	1.19
	Moderate	0	0.23	0	0.23
	Higher	0	0	0	0