Subsistence score 0-0.54 24.2 53.9 21.8 20.6 51.4 0.55-1 18.8 64.1 17.2 19.1 58.4 1.01-3 13.3 62.2 24.4 12.0 61.1 P-valuec 0.07 Language ability (SILA) Very well – Very well/relatively well 22.0 58.9 19.1 20.7 54.2 Not very well – Not well 11.9 64.2 23.8 11.8 60.9 P-value 0.02 Age 16-34 years 20.4 66.1 13.6 20.8 66.9 35-59 years 20.8 60.8 18.5 18.3 56.3 60-87 years 8.2 48.0 43.8 11.8 29.0 P-value 0.00 Education < High school/vocational school 16.6 61.4 22.1 16.8 53.0 High school/vocational school 22.0 61.0 17.0 19.2 62.4 University 25.0 46.4 28.6 26.2 57.4 P-value 0.21 Smoking Do not smoke 17.9 59.2 22.9 25.6 54.4 Half pack or less daily 21.8 58.1 20.1 13.0 58.3 More than half pack daily 17.4 65.2 17.4 12.0 55.4 P-value 0.63 Chronic problem Yes 15.8 28.1 56.1 4.2 35.4 No 19.7 65.0 15.3 22.0 59.9 P-value 0.00 Living in Village/Finnmark 18.6 60.3 21.1 17.1 58.3 Town/ Not in Finnmark 19.2 60.6 20.2 18.7 54.8 P-value 0.98 Housing condition 0-1 23.1 61.5 15.4 22.1 52.6 0-2 14.8 63.7 21.5 18.5 59.9 4-9 18.4 57.2 24.3 14.7 52.2 P-value 0.17 a Self-rated health coded: 0) Very good, 1) Good, 2) Fair/Poor/Very Poor. b Self-rated health coded: 0) Excellent , 1) Very good, 2) Good/Fair/Poor. c Fisher’s exact chi2 test on non-imputed data. 28.0 22.5 26.9 0.19 25.1 27.3 0.04 12.4 25.4 59.2 0.00 30.2 18.4 16.4 0.02 20.0 28.7 32.6 0.00 60.4 18.1 0.00 24.6 26.5 0.78 25.3 21.7 33.1 0.14 16.7 22.2 16.7 9.5 22.4 33.3 22.6 18.2 10.5 13.5 20.1 18.1 19.9 20.3 19.4 17.7 37.0 32.5 14.8 25.0 33.9 25.0 31.4 30.3 28.4 5.4 34.7 27.8 33.8 37.2 27.4 21.0 23.2 14.3 15.9 28.2 41.7 22.7 25.5 15.2 19.8 38.0 17.8 13.3 17.2 29.8 25.6 31.0 14.6 17.5 19.0 34.2 48.6 44.1 61.4 0.08 54.7 46.8 0.00 46.3 45.3 68.5 0.02 65.5 43.7 41.7 0.00 46.0 51.5 61.2 0.21 81.1 45.2 0.00 54.2 46.3 0.41 42.6 53.2 61.3 0.11 20.0 17.9 3.4 14.4 17.3 20.0 18.7 15.5 13.5 4.3 18.5 15.7 16.9 18.8 15.8 11.8 35.0 27.9 15.3 18.9 32.3 50.0 31.0 31.0 17.3 8.5 31.5 24.7 31.5 32.5 22.1 26.5 Eliassen et al. BMC Public Health 2012, 12:948 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/948 Page 7 of 11 Table 2 Crude distribution of self-rated health by country, gender and relevant confounders Self-rated health (%) Greenlanda Alaskab Men Women Men Women 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 Norwayb 0 Women 1 28.1 13.5 31.6 30.2 15.0 17.4 22.1 31.4 (see methods). The same limitations with regard to the assessments of effect sizes were relevant herein. While SRH appears to be a valid measure for assessing health, there are potential cultural differences in how SRH is conceptualised and the determinants that factor into self-assessments of health [66]. Caution must in that regard be shown in terms of comparing the relative strength of the association among these populations. Overall consistency of meaning in the questionnaire was however secured during the design-stage of SLiCA [55]. 52.4 61.1 51.7 0.70 66.4 48.3 0.00 45.0 54.2 81.4 0.00 66.7 50.4 30.0 0.00 50.3 53.5 69.2 0.18 87.2 50.0 0.00 59.6 51.6 0.26 48.7 62.1 61.8 0.15 0 25.0 25.0 19.7 24.6 16.5 30.3 21.6 16.7 20.0 15.0 28.2 19.2 25.5 - 2.0 28.6 Men 1 26.9 32.9 33.3 30.8 31.7 42.4 31.0 25.0 20.0 31.3 36.5 34.4 21.6 - 18.4 35.1 - - - - - - 2 48.1 42.1 47.0 0.86 44.6 51.9 0.35 27.3 47.4 58.3 0.08 60.0 53.8 35.3 0.03 46.4 52.9 - 0.21 79.6 36.4 0.00 40.4 56.3 0.02 - - - - 22.2 13.4 15.7 13.9 19.3 16.7 16.9 10.9 6.1 13.8 20.2 20.8 7.0 - 2.7 24.1 - - - 20.6 23.2 35.3 21.5 32.5 38.1 25.8 15.2 21.2 17.2 31.1 26.4 19.3 - 12.0 33.8 - - - 2 57.1 63.4 49.0 0.26 64.6 48.2 0.06 45.2 57.3 73.9 0.08 72.7 69.0 48.7 0.03 52.8 73.7 - 0.01 85.3 42.1 0.00 63.0 51.2 0.20 - - - -