Article

Socioeconomic Status in Health Research: One Size Does Not Fit All

Center on Social Disparities in Health and Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0900, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 01/2006; 294(22):2879-88. DOI: 10.1001/jama.294.22.2879
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Problems with measuring socioeconomic status (SES)-frequently included in clinical and public health studies as a control variable and less frequently as the variable(s) of main interest-could affect research findings and conclusions, with implications for practice and policy. We critically examine standard SES measurement approaches, illustrating problems with examples from new analyses and the literature. For example, marked racial/ethnic differences in income at a given educational level and in wealth at a given income level raise questions about the socioeconomic comparability of individuals who are similar on education or income alone. Evidence also shows that conclusions about nonsocioeconomic causes of racial/ethnic differences in health may depend on the measure-eg, income, wealth, education, occupation, neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics, or past socioeconomic experiences-used to "control for SES," suggesting that findings from studies that have measured limited aspects of SES should be reassessed. We recommend an outcome- and social group-specific approach to SES measurement that involves (1) considering plausible explanatory pathways and mechanisms, (2) measuring as much relevant socioeconomic information as possible, (3) specifying the particular socioeconomic factors measured (rather than SES overall), and (4) systematically considering how potentially important unmeasured socioeconomic factors may affect conclusions. Better SES measures are needed in data sources, but improvements could be made by using existing information more thoughtfully and acknowledging its limitations.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Catherine Cubbin, Jul 02, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
408 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND In the United States (US), the area-based measure of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics used in health research varies considerably from one study to another. However, it is unclear whether different area-based measures capture the same or different dimension of neighborhood context. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between single measures (i.e., area-based median household income and median family income) and composite measures (i.e., area-based measures derived from a combination of multiple variables) of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics. METHODS Area-based socioeconomic data at the census tract level were obtained from the 2005– 09 American Community Survey (ACS) for St. Louis, Missouri; Chicago, Illinois; San Diego, California; and Los Angeles, California. Single measures of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics were simply taken from the ACS data, and composite measures were derived from the computational methods described in previous studies. Separate correlation statistics were then conducted for four US cities. RESULTS Despite the differences in how selected area-based measures of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics were derived from the ACS data, they were highly correlated (either negatively or positively) with one another. In other words, selected area-based measures capture the same dimension of neighborhood context. CONCLUSIONS A neighborhood affluence-deprivation continuum in US cities may be captured by an area-based median household (or family) income. Nevertheless, to ensure the generalizability and transportability of results from four US cities, further comparisons of area-based measures (not limited to those considered in this study) are needed in different US cities.
    Demographic Research 06/2015; 32(54):1469−1486. DOI:10.4054/DemRes.2015.32.54 · 1.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Socio-economic conditions during early life are known to affect later life outcomes such as health or social success. We investigated whether family socio-economic background may also affect facial attractiveness. We used the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (n = 8434) to analyze the association between an individual’s parental socio- economic background (in terms of father’s highest education and parental income) and that individual’s facial attractiveness (estimated by rating of high school yearbook photographs when subjects were between 17 and 20 years old), controlling for subjects’ sex, year of birth, and father’s age at subjects’ birth. Subjects’ facial attractiveness increased with increasing father’s highest educational attainment as well as increasing parental income, with the latter effect being stronger for female subjects as well. We conclude that early socio-economic conditions predict, to some extent, facial attractiveness in young adulthood.
    Evolutionary Psychology 12/2014; 12(5):1056-1065. · 1.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Beyond quantity, variety of fruit and vegetable (FV) intake prevents chronic conditions and is widely recommended as critical to healthful eating. FV consumption is socially patterned, especially for women, but little is known about multiple economic determinants of variety or whether they differ from those of quantity. Objective: To examine socioeconomic status and financial hardships in relation to variety and quantity of FV intakes among older British women and men. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 9580 adults (50–79 years) in the nationally representative EPIC cohort who responded to a postal Health and Life Experiences Questionnaire (1996–2000) and Food Frequency Questionnaire (1998–2002). Variety counted unique items consumed (items/month) and quantity measured total intake (g/day). Results: No consistent differences by any economic factor were observed for quantity of fruits or vegetables, except education in men. Lower education, lower social class and renting were independently associated with lower fruit variety and vegetable variety (p-trend < 0.001), with differences stronger in men. Mean vegetable variety differed between top and bottom social classes by 2.9 items/month for men and 2.5 for women. Greater financial hardships were also independently associated with lower variety, with differences stronger in women for fruits and in men for vegetables. Conclusions: British older adults reporting greater economic disadvantage consistently consumed fewer different fruits or vegetables, but not lower amounts. Further nutrition studies of the protective effects, and underlying mechanisms, of FV variety are warranted for addressing social inequalities in older adults' diet quality. Dietary guidance should separately emphasise variety, and interventions should aim to address financial barriers to older adults' consumption of diverse FV.
    Appetite 09/2014; 83. DOI:10.1016/j.appet.2014.08.038 · 2.69 Impact Factor