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: 29.98). 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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionMenarche, the first indicator of reproductive capacity in women, is known to be regulated by multifactorial intrauterine and childhood events (Sloboda et al. 2007). Yet we know little about what determines menarcheal age (Vogel 2005; Ong et al.2007). Data for twins, sisters and mothers-daughters suggest a significant genetic effect (Sánchez-Andrés 1997; Ersoy et al. 2005; Teherani et al.2010). The mother’s menarcheal age is considered a good predictor of the daughter’s menarcheal age in non-obese girls (Ersoy et al. 2005). The Fels Longitudinal Study (Yellow Springs, OH) (Towne et al.2005) found that the heritability of age at menarche is 0.49 ± 0.13 (95 % confidence interval: 0.24–0.73), suggesting that approximately half of the phenotypic variation in the timing of menarche among girls from developed countries is due to genetic factors.However, this intergenerational association may also be partly due to the environmental factors shared by mothers and daughters, e.g. simi ...
    Human Ecology 06/2014; 42(3):493-501. · 1.63 Impact Factor
  • Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders. 10/2013; 2(4):388-390.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To conduct meaningful, epidemiologic research on racial-ethnic health disparities, racial-ethnic samples must be rendered equivalent on other social status and contextual variables via statistical controls of those extraneous factors. The racial-ethnic groups must also be equally familiar with and have similar responses to the methods and measures used to collect health data, must have equal opportunity to participate in the research, and must be equally representative of their respective populations. In the absence of such measurement equivalence, studies of racial-ethnic health disparities are confounded by a plethora of unmeasured, uncontrolled correlates of race-ethnicity. Those correlates render the samples, methods, and measures incomparable across racial-ethnic groups, and diminish the ability to attribute health differences discovered to race-ethnicity vs. to its correlates. This paper reviews the non-equivalent yet normative samples, methodologies and measures used in epidemiologic studies of racial-ethnic health disparities, and provides concrete suggestions for improving sample, method, and scalar measurement equivalence.
    Frontiers in Public Health 12/2014; 2:282.

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
Jun 1, 2014