ArticlePDF Available

Impact of the population density on quality of life

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

The aim of this study was to compare life quality of people living in İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir having higher population density to those living in cities having lower population density. 2060 people from İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir, 5892 people from other cities, totally 7952 people, were participated in the study. Turkish version of WHOQOL-BREF scale consisting 27 items, developed by World Health Organization with the participation of 15 collaboration centers was used to determine life quality of participants. WHOQOL-BREF scale includes four dimensions; physical, psychological, social relations, and environment SPSS 16.0 was used to analyzed collected data. Descriptive analyze was used to determine characteristics of participants, Independent t test was used to compare cities having different populations densities, crosstab and chi square tests were used to analyze items not included in scoring. Significant differences were found between people from cities having different population density in terms of physical and environmental field (p<0.05), and psychological field (p<0.01). No significant difference was found in terms of social field (p>0.05). Consequently, according to higher level of life quality scores of people living in high population density than those living low population densities in terms of physical, psychological, social and environmental field, it can be said that it is a positive reflection of life to life quality in cities having higher population density.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Year: 2017
Impact of the population density on quality of life
Aytekin Hamdi Başkan1
Ercan Zorba2
Akan Bayrakdar3
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare life quality of people living in İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir
having higher population density to those living in cities having lower population density. 2060
people from İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir, 5892 people from other cities, totally 7952 people, were
participated in the study. Turkish version of WHOQOL-BREF scale consisting 27 items,
developed by World Health Organization with the participation of 15 collaboration centers was
used to determine life quality of participants. WHOQOL-BREF scale includes four dimensions;
physical, psychological, social relations, and environment SPSS 16.0 was used to analyzed collected
data. Descriptive analyze was used to determine characteristics of participants, Independent t test
was used to compare cities having different populations densities, crosstab and chi square tests
were used to analyze items not included in scoring. Significant differences were found between
people from cities having different population density in terms of physical and environmental field
(p<0.05), and psychological field (p<0.01). No significant difference was found in terms of social
field (p>0.05). Consequently, according to higher level of life quality scores of people living in high
population density than those living low population densities in terms of physical, psychological,
social and environmental field, it can be said that it is a positive reflection of life to life quality in
cities having higher population density.
Keywords: Quality of Life; Population Density; Whoqol-Bref.
1. Introduction
In recent years, we often encounter the concept of “quality of life” as the field that the
science and administrative environment focus on. Being in a continuous development and having
versatile feature the term “quality of life” that has a dynamic quality make it difficult to be defined.
(Ateş, 2009: 14). Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, in spite of many publications and academic studies
on quality of life, there is no precise definition of the concept in everyday conversation and in
various science. Because the quality of life is a subjective concept and definitions will naturally be
different. Different definitions; overlapped to some extent, but certainly not synonymous; refer to
concepts such as satisfaction, happiness, mood, positive impact negative impact balance, cognitive
assessment, health, subjective and psychological well-being. (Özpancar, 2005: 27).
According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory; Maslow summed up the quality of
people's lives to be at a good level in five stages. 1. Physiological needs: They are basic instinctual
needs such needs as eating, drinking, sleeping, breathe, sex can be given as examples in this
category. 2. Safety Needs: People need to protect the life and property assets. 3. Love and
1
Ph.D., Gazi University, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Recreation, aytekinbaskan@gmail.com
2Assist. Prof. Dr., Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Sport Management,
ercanzorba1907@hotmail.com
3 Res. Assist., Gazi University, Faculty of Sport Sciences, akanbayrakdar@gmail.com
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
507
Belonging Need: Type of needs such as love, to be loved, to belong to a group, benevolence,
compassion can be given as example of this group. 4. Esteem Need: Except for love or to be loved
people also want to be respected. They head towards the needs like recognition, having social
status, to achieve success, appreciation. 5. Self-Actualization Need: The individual who meets the
needs in subcategory needs to realize the ideals and capabilities on the final stage. The quality of life
is considered to be increased directly proportional as much as the person perform these mentioned
stages (Akgül, 2006: 1).
Quality of life and health related quality of life was considered extensively in the literature.
These considerations are often related to the measurement of physical function and quality of
life(Hsiao and others, 2014: 2). People need to have a quality life to sustain their lives happily,
compatible with themselves and their environment and in life satisfaction. The World Health
Organization (WHO) has set the target which members should be socially, economically and
spiritually productive as well as have healthy and better quality of life (Ergen, 2011: 15). Moreover;
Quality of life includes the correspondence between desired and acquired expectations about
physical, psychological and social world-view (Lustyk and others, 2004: 125). According to a
different definition; Quality of life is a multi dimensional concept including emotional, mental,
social, physical and behavioral components (Janse anf others, 2004: 654).
After the definition of World Health Organisation (WHO) in 1948 “Health is a state of
complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease”, to measure
the state of well-being related to health, the concept of quality of life gained a gradually increasing
importance in health care applications and researches (Avcı and Pala, 2004: 81). In the literature,
quality of life was considered synonymous with various terms. So; Life satisfaction is explained as
self-esteem, well-being, happiness, health, dignity, the importance of life, functional status and
disposition. There are many components of quality of life: access to health and education, adequate
nutrition and protection, a healthy environment, equality of rights, opportunities and gender,
participate in daily life, dignity and security. All of these compounds are important individually; the
lack of even one hurts person’s "I'm living a quality life." feelings. (Zorba, 2008: 84).
Quality of life, includes many aspects of life and different values changing from person to
person. Quality of life indicators like physical and material well-being, satisfaction in activities that
provide participation in social life, leisure activities, psychological status, functional ability,
emotional, spiritual and well-being in terms of gender, satisfaction in relationships with friends and
family, future orientation vary depending on the person's character, perception of life, socio-
cultural habits (Telatar, 2007: 22). Campbell, Converse and Rodgers in 1976 in their research related
to quality of life aim to create an indicator that summarizes people's overall happiness and
satisfaction feelings covering different satisfaction areas and have identified 11 different saturation
field in order of importance. 1. Health, 2. Marriage, 3. Family Life, 4. National governments, 5.
Friendship, 6. Home (residential), 7. Work, 8. Community, 9. Faith / religion, 10. Recreational and
sports activities 11. Financial status. The share of participation in physical activities occurring in
free time is quite a lot in the socialization of the individual, communication with more people and
get rid of the stress of the day and have more social support. (Zorba, 2008: 84).
The health which has an important role in the perception of quality of life; is in a very tight
relationship with our environment that we influence with our way of life and behaviors. That is
why, the changes occurred in our behavior and in our lives over time led to the creation of many
new dimensions in health. Rapid growth of urbanization in this era we live in, people's less
movement of their body, socio-economic and cultural problems brought by irregular urbanization
and the factors that cause psychological stress (noise, heavy traffic, etc.) has changed the form of
people's health problems (Yeniokatan, 2006: 31).
As it can be understood from above, returns of urbanization and stable lifestyle hold an
important place among the factors affecting the quality of life positively or negatively. Because of its
innate characteristics, the human body needs to move constantly. However, the characteristics of
our era have taken us away from our present needs.
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
508
2. Method
This study has been carried out to compare life quality of people living in İstanbul, Ankara
and İzmir having higher population density to those living in cities having lower population density
in proportion to the mentioned cities. In accordance with this purpose online survey through
Google drive were created to reach more individuals. The questionnaire created online was
advertised through social media to reach people and they were provided to fill via their email
addresses in order not to answer more than once. Data were collected for the study for 12 months
between January and December 2014. Information about demographic features like age,
educational status, marital status of the individuals participating in the study was collected. A total
of 7952 people including 2060 people from Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, 5892 people from other
cities were reached in the research.
In order to determine the participants' quality of life, Turkish version of the WHOQOL-
BREF scale with 27 items, which is prepared by the World Health Organization with the
participation of 15 co-operation center, was applied. "Cronbach alpha" value calculated for the
internal consistency was determined as 0.83 in the physical domain, 0.66 in the psychological
domain, 0.53 in the social domain, 0.73 in the environmental domain and 0.73 in the national
environmental domain. Pearson coefficients calculated for each question in order to calculate the
test-retest reliability ranged from 0.57, and 0.81 (Eser ve diğerleri, 1999: 25).
WHOQOL-BREF scale consists of four sub-areas, including physical space, psychological
domain, social relationship, environment. The Scale includes closed-ended questions appropriate to
Likert Scale.
The scale of which the field studies done in different cultures can be applied to adult age
and considered to be a reliable and valid measurement tool of quality of life (Fidaner ve diğerleri,
1999: 5). WHOQOL-BREF can be used for different purposes in society. This scale prepared by
the participation of experts the 18 countries within The World Health Organization, is used in
treatment services to assist the doctor in the selection of a treatment method, and to compare the
treatment methods with each other and the effects of these methods over time. In addition, it is
widely used in the development of health services, in health-related researches and in the
development of new health policies (Fidaner ve diğerleri, 1999: 6). The avarage of the scores from
each question is used to calculate the domain scores. Then the average scores multiplied by 4 is
made to be compared with WHOQOL-100 scale. First in the calculation of scores it should be
checked that all the answers to the questions are between 1 and 5, and if there is a different value it
must be changed as empty. Then, as the responses of the 3., 4. and 6. questions indicate negative
their points is reversed (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1). After these operations; For the
calculation of the physical domain scores, the arithmetic average of the scores of questions 3, 4, 10,
15, 16, 17 and 18 are multiplied by four (at least six question must be fully-answered). For the
calculation of the psychological domain scores, the arithmetic average of the scores of questions 5,
6, 7, 11, 19, and 26 are multiplied by four (at least five questions must be fully-answered). Social
Domain score; calculated by multiplying the arithmetic average of the scores of questions 20,21 and
22 by 4 (at least two question must be fully-answered). The score of Social Domain as the forth
domain; calculated by multiplying the arithmetic average of the scores of questions 8, 9, 12, 13, 14,
23, 24 and 25 by 4 (at least six question must be fully-answered) (Telatar, 2007: 32).
Data Analysis: SPSS 16 software package was used for statistical analysis of the data
obtained. In Research, to determine the individual characteristics, frequency analysis; for
comparison of cities according to population density, Independent t-test; in the analysis of the
questions not included in the scoring, chi-square and Crosstab analysis were used. The level of
significance was taken as p <0.05.
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
509
3. Findings
Table 1: Gender Distribution
N
%
Female
3670
46,2
Male
4282
53,8
Total
7952
100,0
According to the table it has been identified that 46,2 % (3670) female and 53,8% (4282)
male of the individuals participated in the research.
Table 2: Distributions of Participants by Occupation
%
Public
22,7
Private
31,3
Retired
,7
Student
38,2
Unemployed
7,1
Total
100,0
According to the table it has been identified that 22,7% public sector, 31.3% private sector,
0.7% retired, 38,2% student and 7,1% unemployed of the individuals participated in the research.
Table 3: Educational Status of Participants
N
%
Primary
214
2,7
Secondary
1015
12,8
University
5520
69,4
Post Graduate
835
10,5
Doctorate
368
4,6
Total
7952
100,0
It has been identified that 2,7% primary, 12,8%secondary, 69,4% university, 10,5 post
graduate and 4,6 % doctorate graduate of the individuals participated in the research.
Table 4: Distributions of Participants by Age
N
%
Age 18 and under
324
4,1
Age 19-25
3482
43,8
Age 26-32
2688
33,8
Age 33-40
898
11,3
Age 41-48
367
4,6
Age 49-55
188
2,4
Age 56-64
5
0,1
Total
7952
100,0
It has been identified that 4,1% age 18 and under, 43,8% between the ages 19-25, 33,8%
between the ages 26-32, 11,3% between the ages 33-40, 4,6% between the ages 41-48, 2,4%
between the ages 49-55, 0,1% between the ages 56-64 of the individuals participated in the research.
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
510
Table 5: Length, weight and body mass index values of the participants
Parameters
N
Arithmetic
Average
Standard
Deviation
Length
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
1,72
,09
Other cities
5892
1,72
,08
Weight
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
70,43
16,28
Other cities
5892
69,76
15,04
Body mass
index
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
23,38
4,29
Other cities
5892
23,37
3,88
According to the t test; out of 2060 individuals surveyed in İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir, it
has been determined 1,72±0,09 as length, 70,43±16,28 as weight and 23,38±4,29 as body mass
index. From other cities; out of 5892 individuals 1,72±0,08 as length, 69,76±15,04 as weight and
23,37±3,88 as body mass index have been determined.
Table 6: Comparison of other cities with the cities that have more Population Density
Parameters
N
Arithmetic
Average
Standard
Deviation
t
p
Physical Domain
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
15,57
2,36
2,54
<0,05
Other cities
5892
15,41
2,41
Psychological Domain
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
13,72
1,38
2,68
<0,01
Other cities
5892
13,63
1,38
Social Domain
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
14,26
3,17
1,07
>0,05
Other cities
5892
14,17
3,37
Environmental
Domain
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
13,75
2,20
2,38
<0,05
Other cities
5891
13,61
2,39
While Physical Domain score average of the individuals participating in Istanbul, Ankara
and Izmir is determined as 15,57±2,36, psychological domain score average as 13,72±1,38, social
domain score average as 14,26±3,17 and environmental domain score average as 13,75±2,20, the
individuals’ physical domain score average determined as 15,41±2,41, psychological domain score
average as 13,63±1,38, social domain score average as 14,17±3,37 and environmental domain score
average as 13,61±2,39 participated from other cities. While there is a significant difference between
physical and environmental domain score averages of the subjects at a level of p<0,05, there is a
significant difference at a level of p<0,01 in psychological domain score. But it is not found a
significant difference between social domain score average(p>0,05).
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
511
Table 7: Independent t-test analysis of the questions that form the physical domain scores
Physical Domain
N
Arithmetic
Average
Standard
Deviation
t
p
3.How much do you think your pains
influence what you need to do?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,48
1,00
-,05
>0,05
Other cities
5892
3,48
1,09
4.How much do you need a medical
treatment to conduct your daily work?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
4,43
0,89
,22
>0,05
Other cities
5892
4,42
0,86
10. Do you have enough power or strength
to maintain the daily life?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
4,03
0,89
-2,53
<0,05
Other cities
5892
4,08
0,89
15. How is your Physical mobility (ability to
move around, to go somewhere) skills?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
4,21
0,91
7,62
<0,05
Other cities
5892
4,03
0,93
16. How satisfied are you with your sleep?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,27
1,16
1,79
>0,05
Other cities
5892
3,21
1,27
17. How satisfied are you with your ability
to conduct your daily works?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,78
0,86
1,85
>0,05
Other cities
5892
3,73
0,94
18. How satisfied are you with your
performance capacity?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
4,03
0,76
1,90
>0,05
Other cities
5892
3,99
0,90
When the responses of the individuals living in the provinces of İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir and
other cities have been analyzed it has been identified that; individuals living in İstanbul, Ankara,
İzmir have replied as 4,03±0,89 to the question Do you have enough power or strength to
maintain the daily life?”, the individuals living in other cities replied as 4,08±0,89, to the question “.
How is your Physical mobility (ability to move around, to go somewhere) skills?individuals living
in İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir have replied as 4,21±0,91, individuals living in other cities replied as
4,03±0,93. According to the questions that compose the physical domain, when the responses of
the individuals living in İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir and other cities considered no significant
difference is encountered in the questions; “How much do you think your pains influence what you
need to do?”, “How much do you need a medical treatment to conduct your daily work?”, “How
satisfied are you with your sleep?”, “How satisfied are you with your performance capacity?”, “How
satisfied are you with your ability to conduct your daily works?”. A significant difference with a
level of p<0,05 is encountered in the questions “Do you have enough power or strength to
maintain the daily life?” andHow is your Physical mobility (ability to move around, to go
somewhere) skills?”
Table 8: Independent t-test analysis of the questions that form the Psychological domain
Psychological domain
N
Arithmetic
Average
Standard
Deviation
t
p
5. How much do you enjoy living?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,84
0,88
4,61
<0,05
Other cities
5892
3,74
0,87
6. To what extent do you think your life
meaningful?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
2,21
0,87
-4,60
<0,05
Other cities
5892
2,31
0,88
7. How effective are you in focusing your
attention?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,37
0,91
1,49
>0,05
Other cities
5892
3,34
0,91
11. Do you accept your physical appearance?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
4,16
0,96
,76
>0,05
Other cities
5892
4,14
0,98
19. How satisfied are you with yourself?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
4,02
0,98
3,44
<0,05
Other cities
5892
3,93
1,05
26. How often do you have a negative feeling
like sadness, hopelessness, anxiety, depression?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
2,96
0,92
-,094
>0,05
Other cities
5892
2,96
0,84
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
512
When the responses for the Psychological domain of the individuals living in the provinces
of İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir and other cities have been analyzed for the Psychological domain it has
been identified that people living in İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir replied as 3,84±0,88, people living in
other cities replied as 3,74±0,87 to the question “How much do you enjoy living?”, to the question
“To what extent do you think your life meaningful?people living in İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
replied as 2,21±0,87, people living in other cities replied as 2,31±0,88, to the question “How
satisfied are you with yourself?” ?” people living in İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir replied as 4,02±0,98,
people living in other cities replied as 3,93±1,05. According to the questions that forms the
Psychological domain, when the responses of the individuals living in the provinces of İstanbul,
Ankara, İzmir and other cities have been analyzed a significant difference at p<0,05 level has been
found between the replies to the questions “How much do you enjoy living?”, “To what extent do
you think your life meaningful?” and “How satisfied are you with yourself?”. No significant
difference has been found at the questions: “How effective are you in focusing your attention?”,
“Do you accept your physical appearance?” and “How often do you have a negative feeling like
sadness, hopelessness, anxiety, depression?”
Table 9: Independent t-test analysis of the questions that form the Social domain
Social domain
N
Arithmetic
Average
Standard
Deviation
t
p
20. How satisfied are you with your
relationships with people except from your
family?
İstanbul, Ankara,
İzmir
2060
3,85
1,03
4,44
<0,05
Other cities
5892
3,74
0,97
21. How satisfied are you with your sex
life?
İstanbul, Ankara,
İzmir
2060
3,47
1,19
2,31
<0,05
Other cities
5892
3,39
1,32
22. How satisfied are you with the support
of your friends?
İstanbul, Ankara,
İzmir
2060
3,36
0,97
-4,51
<0,05
Other cities
5892
3,49
1,09
When the responses of the individuals living in the provinces of İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir and
other cities have been analyzed for the Social domain it has been identified that people living in
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir replied as 3,85±1,03, people living in other cities replied as 3,74±0,97 to the
question “How satisfied are you with your relationships with people except from your family?”, to
the question “How satisfied are you with your sex life?” people living in İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
replied as 3,47±1,19, people living in other cities replied as 3,39±1,32, to the question “How
satisfied are you with the support of your friends?” people living in İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir replied
as 3,36±0,97, people living in other cities replied as 3,49±1,09. According to the questions that
forms the Social domain, when the responses of the individuals living in the provinces of İstanbul,
Ankara, İzmir and other cities have been analyzed a significant difference at p<0,05 level has been
found between the replies to the questions How satisfied are you with your relationships with
people except from your family?”, “How satisfied are you with your sex life?” and “How satisfied
are you with the support of your friends?”.
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
513
Table 10: Independent t-test analysis of the questions that form the Environmental domain
Environmental domain
N
Arithmetic
Average
Standard
Deviation
t
p
8. How confident do you feel in your daily
life?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,47
0,89
-1,97
>0,05
Other cities
5892
3,51
0,90
9. To what extent is your physical
environment healthy?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,35
0,73
6,60
<0,05
Other cities
5892
3,22
0,81
12. Do you have enough money to meet
your needs?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,30
1,01
6,83
<0,05
Other cities
5892
3,14
0,88
13. To what extent can you get the
necessary information and news in your
daily life?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
4,02
0,79
9,46
<0,05
Other cities
5892
3,81
0,90
14. To what extent do you have opportunity
for leisure time activities?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,22
0,88
2,78
<0,05
Other cities
5892
3,15
0,96
23. How satisfied are you with the
conditions of the house you live in?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,54
1,17
-5,27
<0,05
Other cities
5892
3,69
1,09
24. How satisfied are you with your
conditions of access to health care?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,34
1,01
-1,34
>0,05
Other cities
5891
3,38
1,10
25.How satisfied are you with your
transportation facilities?
İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
2060
3,23
1,25
-2,04
<0,05
Other cities
5892
3,29
1,22
When the responses of the individuals living in the provinces of İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir
and other cities have been analyzed for the Environmental domain it has been identified that
people living in İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir replied as 3,35±0,73, people living in other cities replied as
3,22±081 to the question “To what extent is your physical environment healthy?”, to the question
“Do you have enough money to meet your needs?” people living in İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir replied
as 3,30±1,01, people living in other cities replied as 3,14±0,88, to the question “To what extent can
you get the necessary information and news in your daily life?” people living in İstanbul, Ankara,
İzmir replied as 4,02±0,79, people living in other cities replied as 3,81±0,90, to the question “To
what extent do you have opportunity for leisure time activities?” people living in İstanbul, Ankara,
İzmir replied as 3,22±0,88, people living in other cities replied as 3,15±0,96, to the question “How
satisfied are you with the conditions of the house you live in?” people living in İstanbul, Ankara,
İzmir replied as 3,54±1,17, people living in other cities replied as 3,69±1,09, to the question “How
satisfied are you with your transportation facilities?” people living in İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir replied
as 3,23±1,25, people living in other cities replied as 3,29±1,22.
According to the questions that forms the Environment domain, when the responses of
the individuals living in the provinces of İstanbul, Ankara, İzmir and other cities have been
analyzed a significant difference at p<0,05 level has been found between the replies to the
questions To what extent is your physical environment healthy?”, “Do you have enough money
to meet your needs?”, “To what extent can you get the necessary information and news in your
daily life?”, “To what extent do you have opportunity for leisure time activities”, “How satisfied are
you with the conditions of the house you live in?” and “How satisfied are you with your
transportation facilities?”. No significant difference has been found at the questions: “How
confident do you feel in your daily life?” and “How satisfied are you with your conditions of access
to health care?”.
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
514
Table 11: Quality of Life Perception
Very bad
Slightly bad
Not good
Not bad
Quite good
Very good
Total
İstanbul,
Ankara, İzmir
N
90
142
1175
612
41
2060
%
%1,1
%1,8
%14,8
%7,7
%0,5
%25,9
Other Cities
N
180
547
3489
1522
154
5892
%
%2,3
%6,9
%43,9
%19,1
%1,9
%74,1
Total
N
270
689
4664
2134
195
7952
%
%3,4
%8,7
%58,7
%26,8
%2,5
%100,0
X²=30,03 p<0,001
When the life quality of individuals is considered according to the place they live, 1,1% is
very bad of the quality of life perception of people live in İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir, 1,8% is
slightly bad, 14,8% is not good or not bad, 7,7% is quite good and 0,5% is very bad. The life quality
perception of individuals live in other cities; their 2,3% replied as very bad, 6,9% as slightly bad,
43,9% as not good not bad, 19,1% quite god and 1,9% very good. According to the chi-square
analysis carried out, a significant difference at a level of p<0,001 is found between the responses of
individuals.
Table 12: Degree to be satisfied with the health
Not
satisfied
Very little
satisfied
Neutral
Quite satisfied
Very satisfied
Total
İstanbul, Ankara,
İzmir
N
50
242
418
952
398
2060
%
%0,6
%3,0
%5,3
%12,0
%5,0
%25,9
Other cities
N
126
506
1415
2791
1054
5892
%
%1,6
%6,4
%17,8
%35,1
%13,3
%74,1
Total
N
176
748
1833
3743
1452
7952
%
%2,2
%9,4
%23,1
%47,1
%18,3
%100,0
X²=28,10 p<0,001
According to the crosstab analysis carried out, when the individuals’ degree of being satisfied
with health according to where they live is considered; the degree of being satisfied with health for
the individuals live in İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir is identified as; 0,6% of them not satisfied, 3%
very little satisfied, 5,3% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 12% quite satisfied and 5% very satisfied.
When the individuals’ degree of being satisfied with health is considered, it is identified as 1,6% of
them not satisfied, 6,4% very little satisfied, 17,8% neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 35,1% quite
satisfied and13,3% very satisfied. According to the chi-square analysis carried out, a significant
difference at a level of p<0,001 is found between the responses of individuals.
Table 13: The degree of difficulty experienced with the people he/she feels close in his/her
life
Never
A little
Moderate
Quite
Very much
Total
İstanbul, Ankara,
İzmir
N
197
688
864
287
24
2060
%
%2,5
%8,7
%10,9
%3,6
%0,3
%25,9
Other cities
N
949
1692
2552
574
125
5892
%
%11,9
%21,3
%32,1
%7,2
%1,6
%74,1
Total
N
1146
2380
3416
861
149
7952
%
%14,4
%29,9
%43,0
%10,8
%1,9
%100,0
X²=89,39 p<0,001
According to the crosstab analysis carried out, when the individuals’ degree of difficulty
experienced with the people he/she feels close in his/her life according to where they live is
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
515
considered; the responses of the individuals live in İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir are 2,5% of them is
never, 8,7% is very little, 10,9% medium, 3,6% quite and 0,3% of them very much. The responses
that the individuals live in other cities are 11,9% of them is never, 21,3% is very little, 32,1%
medium, 7,2% quite and 1,6% of them very much. According to the chi-square analysis carried out,
a significant difference at a level of p<0,001 is found between the responses of individuals.
4. Discussion
Quality of life is a person's physical and mental well-being status. Many factors contribute
to the quality of life. Among these, being “good” of life, one's happiness and doing things without
being dependent on others and enjoying life can be listed. This study has been carried out to
compare life quality of people living in İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir having higher population density
to those living in cities having lower population density in proportion to the mentioned cities.
46.2% (3670) of individuals who have participated in the survey were female and 53.8%
(4282) were male (Table 1). 22.7% in the public sector, 31.3% work in the private sector, and also
38.2% students (Table 2). 2.7% of primary school, 12,8%in high school, 69.4% university, 10.5%
have a master's degree and 4.6% doctorate level (Table 3). It is identified that 4.1% of the
participants participated in the study aged 18 and under, 43.8% between 19-25 years, 33.8%
between 26-32 years of age, 11.3% between 33-40 years old, 4.6% between the ages of 41-48, ,
2.4% aged between 49-55 and 0.1% between 56-64 years of age (Table 4). 2060 individuals
participated in the survey from İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir have an average of 1.72 ± 0.09 m
height, average of 70.43 ± 16.28 kg of body weight and body mass index value of 23.38 ± 4.29
kg/m2. Other individuals participating in the 5892's the average height of 1.72 ± 0.08 m from the
provinces, an average of 69.76 ± 15.04 kg and body mass index value of 23.37 ± 3.88 kg / m2 of
body weight is defined as (Table 5). 5892 individuals participating from the other provinces have
the average height of 1.72 ± 0.08 m, an average of 69.76 ± 15.04 kg of body weight and value of
23.37 ± 3.88 kg / m2 body mass index are defined. (Table 5).
In our study, when the quality of life scores of individuals living in Istanbul, Ankara and
Izmir are compared with the individuals living in other provinces; in Physical domain, psychological
domain, social domain and environmental domain average scores, it was determined that the
average scores have a better level of individuals living in İstanbul Ankara and Izmir. While there is a
significant level of p<0.05 between average scores of physical and environmental domain of the
subjects participating in the research and at a level of p<0.01 in the psychological domain scores,
not a significant difference found between the scores of social domain (Table 6). according to the
study which was done in Istanbul Büyükçekmece by Ersin Ören (2012); 53.4% of the individuals
surveyed indicated that they are very happy to live in big cities, while 2,4% of them stated that they
are not satisfied to live in big cities. about 33% of those living in metropolitan cities replied that “I
live in a highly secure place” and 60% replied as “The place I live is secure”. Transportation is
considered as one of the main components of quality of life. 37.4% of those surveyed, namely 80
people, were satisfied from the public transport services but a high rate, as 1/3 of dissatisfaction is
reported. According to Quality of Urban Life Index, educational services include the criterias; the
school types in service, school choice, transportation to school, school trip safety, etc. 90 people
that is about 41.7% of those surveyed with the satisfaction of educational services, there is an
educational service that 40 people are not satisfied with the rate of about % 18.6. 94 individuals
corresponding to 43.8% of those surveyed were satisfied from the health service in the city while
the dissatisfaction of a substantial amount which is 30% is noteworthy. From those surveyed, 73
people say (33.8%) certainly, 85 (39.4%) people say that the cultural services of the city is enough;
44 (20.7%) people mentioned about inadequacy of these services. To sum up, Ersin Ören; in the
indicators of Quality of life at the individual level, the quality of the settlement also brings together
the sense of satisfaction from the place he/she live and social relations(Ersin Ören, 2012: 96).
First European Quality of Life Survey conducted by Republic of Turkey, Ministry of
Internal Affairs, Centre for Research and Studies (AREM) in Turkey in July 2007: The aim of the
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
516
study called Quality of life in Turkey; is to determine the factors that affect the daily lives of
European citizens such as living conditions (housing and local environment, family and household
structure, balance between work and family life, the providing social and public services and
promoting employment integration etc.), working conditions (employment, working order, the
time-related issues spent in the workplace, flexibility, monitoring of changes in working conditions,
etc.) of country citizens(AREM, 2007: 2).
In our study, when the quality of life perception of Turkish public is considered, 58,7% of
individuals surveyed are neither pleased nor dissatisfied and 26,8% of them replied as quite
good(Table 11). According to the survey results of AREM (2007), the majority of Turkish society
said they were satisfied with their life in general. Area where they are most satisfied with is their
personal health. Especially the majority of those who answered questions asked about health
condition gave an answer like “my health is very good”. Their least satisfied areas are the areas that
the state is directly responsible for such as health services, education and standard of living. There is
a rapid but irregular population growth in Turkey. Population growth is faster in places especially
like Istanbul where the centre of industrialization. the The main reason of migration of Turkish to
foreign countries at different times from Turkey, the good living conditions and standard of living
is at higher levels than in Turkey. It is highlighted that increased population ratio in metropolitans
as a result of migration formed the crowds in the city, this causes congestion problems (AREM,
2007: 4). In our study, participants were asked “satisfaction degree with your health” as a majority
of 65% answered the question as “quite a few” and “I'm very pleased” (Table 11). In the study that
AREM (2007) made when the health holding an important place in the lives of individual is
considered as a whole, the satisfaction that emerges gives a comprehensive life satisfaction of the
society. In this context, when it is made a rating between 1 (not satisfied) to 10 (very satisfied), it is
remarkable that a group of 15% "not satisfied (1 point)", a group of 23% moderate satisfaction
meaning "not too bad” (five points).
5. Results
The concept of quality of life, to evaluate the subjective data in an objective way. Effects on
the individual's life of physical, mental and social conditions that can be effective in life. the quality
of life concept holds the cultural values and position of the individual within itself (Güney, 2014:
109).
Physical Domain: In the question “Do you have enough power or strength to maintain the
daily life?” the Physical Domain score of the people living in other cities is higher compared to the
individuals living in İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir. For the question “How is your ability of Physical
mobility (ability to move around, to go somewhere)”, the Physical Domain score of people living in
İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir is higher. The score average of the answers given to the question; “How
much do you think your pains influence? What you need to do? How much do you need a medical
treatment to conduct your daily work? How satisfied are you with your sleep? How satisfied are you
with your ability to conduct your daily works? How satisfied are you with your performance
capacity?” is very close to each other and there is not a significant difference.
Psychological Domain: For the questions “How much do you enjoy living? To what extent
do you think your life meaningful?” the Psychological Domain score of the individuals living in
other cities is higher. For the question “How satisfied are you with yourself?” Psychological
Domain score of individuals living in İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir is higher. In the questions “How
effective are you in focusing your attention?”” Do you accept your physical appearance?””How
often do you have a negative feeling like sadness, hopelessness, anxiety, depression?” the score
averages of both are very close to each other.
Social Domain: Social Domain score of individuals living in İstanbul, Ankara and İzmir is
higher in the question How satisfied are you with your relationships with people except from your
family?This is because there are more social areas to spend time in metropolitans and because
people living in metropolitans spend more time in social places. In the question “How satisfied are
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
517
you with the support of your friends?” the social domain score of the individuals living other cities
is higher. The reason of the difference occurred according to this result is the transportation
difficulty, workload and exhaustion felt at the end of the day.
Environmental Domain: Environmental Domain score of individuals living in İstanbul,
Ankara and İzmir is higher in the questions “To what extent is your physical environment healthy?
Do you have enough money to meet your needs? What extent can you get the necessary
information and news in your daily life? To what extent do you have opportunity for leisure time
activities?” It is thought that these results are due to the news centers are in metropolitans and there
are more things for the leisure activities. The Environmental Domain score of individuals living in
other cities is higher in the questions “How satisfied are you with the conditions of the house you
live in?” and “How satisfied are you with your transportation facilities?” It is because the rent of the
real estates in metropolitans and to purchase is difficult. Although there is more than one choice
the transportation is difficult and the distance is far. For the questions “How confident do you feel
in your daily life? and How satisfied are you with your conditions of access to health care?” the
scores of the answers of both group are close to each other.
As a result, with reference to the physical domain, psychological domain, social domain and
environmental domain average score of the individuals living in the cities with population density is
at a better level than the individuals living in other cities, we can say that living in the city with
population density has a positive reflection to the quality of life.
Reference
Akgül, A. (2006). "Pyramid I: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" Available from internet:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.Html Syf 1-3.
Centre for Research and Studies (Arem) (2007). "First European Quality of Life Survey: Quality of
Life in Turkey", Evaluation Report.
Ateş B. (2009). " Evaluation of the physical capacity and the quality of life of the housewifes ", Not
published Postgraduate Thesis, Muğla: Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University Institute of SocialSsciences.
Avci K., Pala K. (2004). " Evaluation of quality of life of the researchers and specialists working in
the Uludag University Medical Faculty”, Uludag University Medical Faculty Magazine, 30(2) 81-
85.
Ergen, A., Tanriverdi, Ö., Kumbasar, A., Arslan, E., & Atmaca, D. (2011). "A cross-sectional study
on the quality of life of health staff- Individual Research", Haseki Medical Newsletter, p 14-
19.
Ersin, Ö.G. (2012). "Quality of Urban life Indicators: Exmaine the case with Büyükçekmece", Not
published Postgraduate Thesis, İstanbul; Mimar Sinan University of Finearts, Institute of Science.
Eser, E., Fidaner, H., Fidaner, C., Eser S.Y., Elbi, H., & Göker, E. (1999). "whoqol-100 and
whoqol-breef’s psychometric features ". 3P Magazine, 23-40.
Fidaner, H.., Elbi, H., Fidaner, C., Eser, S.Y., Eser, E., & Göker, E. (1999). "Measuring Quality of
Life" whoqol-100 and whoqol-bref, 3P Magazine, 5-13.
Telatar, G. T. (2007). "Determination of the quality of life and risky behaviours of 20-24 aged men
work in the industry " Dissertation, Ankara; Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Department
of Public Health.
Güler, D. (2006). "Mastalgia, Quality of Life and depression", İstanbul; Ministry of Health Şişli Etfal
Training and Research Hospital Family Medicine Dissertation
Güney, Z. (2014). "Determination of the Quality of Life of Health Managers" Ankara Sample city,
Ankara; Not published Postgraduate Thesis, Atılım University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of
Business.
Hsiao, Y., Wu, C.H., & Yao, G. (2014). "Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Wooqol-Bref
Using a Multitrait-Multimethod Approach", Social Indicators Research, Vol 116, Issue 3, pp
971-978
Başkan, A. H., Zorba, E., & Bayrakdar, A. (2017). Impact of the population density on quality of life. Journal of Human
Sciences, 14(1), 506-518. doi:10.14687/jhs.v14i1.4416
518
Janse, A.J., Gemke, R.J., UiterwaaL, C.S., Tweel, I., Kimpen, J. L., & Sinnema, G. (2004). "Quality
Of Life: PatientsandDoctorsDon’tAlwaysAgree: A MetaAnlysis". Journal Of
ClinicalEpidemiology, 57 (7), 653 661.
Lustyk, K. B., Widman, L., Paschane, A. A. & Olson, K. C. (2004). "Physical activity and quality of
life: Assessing the influence of activity frequency, intensity, volume, and motives", Behavioral
Medicine, 30, 124-131
Özpancar, N. (2005). "Determination of the quality of life of patients with hypertension". Not
published Postgraduate Thesis, Ankara: Gazi University, Institute of Health Science, Department of
Nursery.
Telatar, T.G. (2007). Determination of the quality of life and risky behaviours of 20-24 aged men
work in the industry “Dissertation, Ankara; Not published Dissertation, Hacettepe University
Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health.
Yeniokutan, İ. (2006). "Participation of Surrounding Settlement Households to the quality of Life
and Urban Life (Etimesgut Sample)". Ankara: Not published Postgraduate Thesis, Hacettepe
University Institute of Social Science.
Zorba, E. (2008). "Quality of Life and Physical Activity", 10Th. International Sports Sciences
Congress, 23-25 October, pp: 82-85.
... Cultural and recreational facilities Accessibility to cultural facilities (min) Accessibility to recreational facilities (min) UQoL is affected both by the characteristics of the built and natural environment [38,47]. Many studies have noticed the importance of high population density on UQoL, either as a beneficial impact in terms of social interactions [48], or as a negative effect regarding the quality of urban environment [49]. As for the built environment, densely populated areas combined with limited open spaces lead to poorer UQoL and low levels of overall life satisfaction [15,49]. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents a geographical analysis to evaluate urban quality of life in Athens, Greece, and investigate spatial heterogeneity and potential clustering. The urban environment was examined using composite criteria related to natural, built and socioeconomic environment, housing conditions, public services and infrastructures, and cultural and recreational facilities. Each criterion constructed from a set of mappable sub-criteria/variables. Weighted cartographic overlay was implemented to assess the overall urban quality of life of each spatial unit, based on the importance the residents of the area attributed to each criterion. High levels of quality of life were revealed in the eastern neighborhoods of the municipality, whereas low levels were noticed mainly in the western neighborhoods. The results of the study were validated using the perceived quality of life of the study area’s residents, resulting in substantial agreement. Finally, after spatial autocorrelation analysis, significant clustering of urban quality of life in Athens was revealed. The quality-of-life assessment and mapping at a local scale are efficient tools, contributing to better decision making and policy making.
... The impact of the built and natural environment on both physical and mental health has been noticed in many studies [13,58]. QoL in cities may be positively affected by higher population density in terms of social coherence [59]. However, overall life satisfaction tends to be higher in less densely populated areas [60], as long as non-densely populated areas combined with open spaces provide better neighborhood QoL [61]. ...
Article
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to assess and visualize the Quality of Life provided by urban space as a place of residence. The proposed methodology, after its theoretical documentation, is implemented in Athens Metropolitan Area, Greece. For the evaluation of Urban Quality of Life, a complex index is constructed by using multicriteria analysis. For this purpose, Quality of Life controlling factors such as built space, natural, socioeconomic, and cultural environment, infrastructure and services, and the quality of housing were analyzed within a GIS environment. The mapping of this index led to the identification of areas with different levels of Quality of Life. The results of the research can lead to more effective decision making regarding the planning of targeted actions and the distribution of financial resources to improve the Quality of Life of the residents in urban areas.
... Many factors contribute to the quality of life. Among these, being "good" of life, one's happiness and doing things without being dependent on others and enjoying life can be listed (Başkan et al., 2017). Quality of life is defined as bed a satisfactory social situation in which the individual perceives bodily capacity limits (Orley and Kuyken, 1993;Bowling 1993). ...
Article
The quality of life (QoL) in cities has increasingly been used as a symbol of urban success. Studies addressing this issue tend to focus, however, on large cities and/or on cities from different countries. By using a set of data from a single country, comprehending cities with different population sizes and densities, observations for 11 performance dimensions, and an approach combining the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) technique and multivariate regression modeling, this study analyses the QoL of Portuguese cities and explores some of its determinants. The results of this analysis show that both small and large cities can offer high levels of QoL with “transport and accessibility,” “safety,” “housing,” “education,” and “culture and entertainment” being the dimensions that most contribute to the QoL assessment. While Lisbon and Oporto (the two largest Portuguese cities) are benchmark cities, some of the highly populated cities located in their Metropolitan Areas present the most potential for improvement in terms of QoL. The results also show that cities located in the hinterland tend to present higher QoL scores than those on the coast. Equally, cities with lower population size and density, those that are district capitals and those with higher per capita current public expenditures present higher levels of QoL. These findings suggest, therefore, that the cities’ typology, their population size and density, and their dependence from local governments’ public expenditures can significantly contribute to the differences identified in their QoL performance.
Article
Full-text available
The WHOQOL-BREF is a commonly used questionnaire in quality of life research. Previous research has shown that the four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF (physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environmental health) are highly related. Whether these high correlations reflected the true relations across the domains or the influence of common method effect; however, is still unknown. This study examines the convergent and discriminant validity of the four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF by using the multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) approach to control the method effect. Two different samples, with a total of 186 and 201 adults, respectively, were used in the present study. Each participant filled out the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaires using four different scaling methods (Likert-type scale, visual analogue scale, pie scale, and partner rating). The covariance matrix of the MTMM result was analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis modeling. Two models were applied, including the correlated traits-correlated uniqueness (CTCU) model and the uncorrelated traits-correlated uniqueness (UTCU) model. Results showed that the CTCU model fit the data better than did the UTCU model, suggesting that the variables tapping the four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF have excellent convergent validity; the four domains have moderate correlations, indicating that the four domains are related but not identical.
Article
Full-text available
This study was aimed to investigate the socio-demographic situations, functional capacities and quality of life of the housewifes in Ankara Büyükşehir Belediyesi Demetevler Hanımlar Lokali. 70 women volunters (age 39,4 ± 8,93, height 68,89 ± 8,93, weight 159,5 ± 5,84 ) with stable general health were included into this study. Their quality of life was assessed by World Health Organization’s Turkish version of WHOQOL-BREF scale. Also to understand the physical condition of the women, resting heart rate, blood pressure, flexibility, body fat percentage, aerobic – anaerobic capacity, body weight and body height were assessed. As statistical anlysis of datas, were done by simple correlation analysis (p <0.05) for understand relation between physical capacity and quality of life areas. At the end of the study, the correlation between physical and psychological areas and body fat percentage were found negative significant (p = 0,05). Also the correlation between physical health and diastolic blood pressure were found significant ( p <0,05). According to the analysis, the general results of the present study indicated that there was a significant relationship between the physical capacity and quality of life areas, especially body fat percentage.
Article
Full-text available
In the present study, the authors investigated the impact of exercise frequency, intensity, and volume along with exercise motives on quality of life (QOL) reports. The authors assessed exercise habits with the Godin Leisure Time Activity Scale and measured exercise motives with the Reasons for Exercise Inventory. The Quality of Life Inventory assessed satisfaction in 16 domains including health, work, and recreation. High-frequency exercisers reported significantly higher health, helping, and community-related QOL than those who exercised less frequently. The authors noted significantly higher health-related QOL in the heavy volume group compared with the other volume groups. Multiple regression tests revealed that activity intensity and exercise motives significantly predicted QOL reports. The strongest bivariate correlations with QOL existed for mild activity and exercising for fitness and health reasons. Thus, high-frequency activity of mild intensity that produces high kcal utilization and is performed to improve health and fitness has the strongest influence on QOL reports.
Article
Aim: Today, the work environment is one of the factors affecting the quality of life. Indeed, in a stressful environment, health care providers must work carefully and diligently. In this study, we aimed to determine health workers' perception towards quality of life and to explore its influential factors. Methods: A total of 110 health personnel who have been actively working within the last 6 months in our hospital were included in this study. The study was completed within one month period encompassing the months of June and July of 2010. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL- BREF) was administered in a face-to-face basis. The T test, ANOVA test and the Tukey's multiple comparison test were used for analysis. Results: No significant conclusion could be drawn from the results for gender, educational level, smoking, number of children, living area, number of years of service, annual leave time, holiday status, frequency of reading, daily news resources, courses, movies, theater, concert, exhibition, surgery undertaken, and presence of chronic disease. In the WHOQOL- BREF domains, such as occupational group, alcohol use, monthly income level, working status, sports habits, psychological status, and chronic diseases, the results were significant. Conclusion: Factors negatively affecting the quality of life have adverse impact on work environment and productivity at work.
Determination of the quality of life of patients with hypertension
  • N Özpancar
Özpancar, N. (2005). "Determination of the quality of life of patients with hypertension". Not published Postgraduate Thesis, Ankara: Gazi University, Institute of Health Science, Department of Nursery.
First European Quality of Life Survey: Quality of Life in Turkey
Centre for Research and Studies (Arem) (2007). "First European Quality of Life Survey: Quality of Life in Turkey", Evaluation Report.
Mastalgia, Quality of Life and depression", İstanbul; Ministry of Health Şişli Etfal Training and Research Hospital Family Medicine Dissertation GüneyDetermination of the Quality of Life of Health Managers
  • D Güler
Güler, D. (2006). "Mastalgia, Quality of Life and depression", İstanbul; Ministry of Health Şişli Etfal Training and Research Hospital Family Medicine Dissertation Güney, Z. (2014). "Determination of the Quality of Life of Health Managers" Ankara Sample city, Ankara; Not published Postgraduate Thesis, Atılım University, Institute of Social Sciences, Department of Business.
Pyramid I: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
  • A Akgül
Akgül, A. (2006). "Pyramid I: Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs" Available from internet: http://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.Html Syf 1-3.