Original Article

Public Health and Perceived Human Rights status in Montenegro among Different Age Groups: The National Study


Background: The aim of this study was to quantify perceived human rights status and put it into perspective to identify areas for monitoring action and progress. Methods: The subjects of this cross-sectional study included a sample of 703 respondents (369 males and 334 females) aged between 18 and 82 yr, divided into four age groups. The research was conducted from 23 Apr to 9 Nov 2021 and respondents from all 24 municipalities of Montenegro were included. The sample of variables contained the system of 19 general attitudes, which give a review of human rights accomplishments (modeled by a seven-point Likert scale). The variables were analyzed using ANOVA, MANOVA, and LSD Post Hoc test. Results: There were differences in the perceived human rights status for different age groups when the interindividual level of interaction (most negative answers in-group IV) and the principle of human rights legislation participation (most negative answers in group I) were considered. Conclusion: This fact indicates the existence of vulnerable age groups. Members of the oldest age category do not succeed in accomplishing adequate interpersonal communication with the persons from their nearest environment, while the opinion of the youngest age category is not respected enough and the possibility to participate equally in the making of important decisions is not being provided to them.


1. Fasterling B, Demuijnck G (2013). Human Rights in the Void? Due Diligence in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. J Bus Ethics, 116(4):799-814.
2. Wildner M, Fischer R, Brunner A (2002). Development of a questionnaire for quantitative assessment in the field of health and human rights. Soc Sci Med, 55(10):1725-1744.
3. Njegoš PP (1957). Gorski Vijenac; Beograd: Prosveta.
4. Saylor C (2004). The circle of health: a health definition model. J Holist Nurs, 22(2):97-115.
5. Lindahl E, Tilton K, Eickholt N, et al (2016). Yoga reduces perceived stress and exhaustion levels in healthy elderly individuals. Complement Ther Clin Pract, 24:50-56.
6. The Writing Group for the Consortium for Health and Human Rights (1998). Health and human rights. A call to ac-tion on the 50th anniversary of the uni-versal declaration of human rights. J Am Med Assoc, 280(5):462–464.
7. Leary V (1994). The rights to health in in-ternational human rights law. Health Hum Rights, 1(1):24–56.
8. Fischer R, Wildner M, Brunner A (2000). Gesundheit und Menschenrechte-Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Messung des empfundenen Menschen-rechtsstatus. Soz Präventivmed, 45(4):161-173.
9. Patterson EG (1993). Human Rights and Human Life: An Uneven Fit. Tulane Law Rev, 68:1527.
10. Weissbrodt D, Divine M. (2015). Unequal access to human rights: The categories of noncitizenship. Citizsh Stud, 19(8):870-891.
11. de Búrca G (2018). Not enough: Human rights in an unequal world. Int J Const Law, 16(4):1347-1352.
12. Turner BS (2021).Vulnerability and human rights. Pennsylvania: Penn State Universi-ty Press.
13. Lim S, Cortina LM, Magley VJ (2008). Per-sonal and workgroup incivility: impact on work and health outcomes. J Appl Psychol, 93(1):95.
14. Jehoel-Gijsbers G, Vrooman C (2007). Explaining Social Exclusion. Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Re-search/SCP.
15. Popovic S, Masanovic B (2019). Effects of Physical and Social Activity on Physical Health and Social Inclusion of Elderly Peo-ple. Iran J Public Health, 48(10):1922-1923.
16. Irby MA, Ferber T, Pittman KJ (2001). Youth action: Youth contributing to communities, communities supporting youth. Takoma Park, MD: International Youth Foundation.
17. London JK, Zimmerman K, Erbstein N (2003) Youth‐Led research and evalua-tion: Tools for youth, organizational, and community development. New Dir Eval, 98:33-45.
18. Armistead PJ, Wexler MB (1997). Commu-nity development and youth develop-ment: The potential for convergence. Takoma Park, Md: International Youth Foundation.
19. O'Toole T, Marsh D, Jones S (2003). Polit-ical literacy cuts both ways: The politics of non-participation among young peo-ple. Political Q, 74(3):349-360.
20. Social Exclusion Unit (2001). Preventing social exclusion. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
21. Wilson C, Secker J (2015). Validation of the Social Inclusion Scale with Students. Soc Incl, 3(4):52-62.
22. Biddle SJH, Asare M (2011). Physical activi-ty and mental health in children and ad-olescents: a review of reviews. Br J Sports Med, 45(11):886–895.
23. Corluka M, Krivokapic D, Milosevic Z, et al (2019). The impact of physical activi-ties on social inclusion of elderly people in montenegro. J Anthr Sport Phys Educ, 3(4):7-10.
24. Sloam J (2007). Rebooting democracy: Youth participation in politics in UK. Parliam aff, 60(4):548-567.
25. Miljanov M (1975). Primjeri cojstva i junastva. Cetinje: Obod.
IssueVol 52 No 1 (2023) QRcode
SectionOriginal Article(s)
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/ijph.v52i1.11675
Health Human Rights Equity

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Vuksanovic Stankovic D, Masanovic B. Public Health and Perceived Human Rights status in Montenegro among Different Age Groups: The National Study. Iran J Public Health. 2023;52(1):138-146.