Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLandy, Ren_US
dc.contributor.authorHead, Jen_US
dc.contributor.authorRichards, Men_US
dc.contributor.authorHardy, Ren_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-09T14:58:20Z
dc.date.available2017-04-05en_US
dc.date.issued2017-06-02en_US
dc.date.submitted2017-06-06T13:00:41.166Z
dc.identifier.urihttp://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/23714
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: This study systematically compared accumulation, sensitive period, critical period and social mobility models relating life course socioeconomic position (SEP) and adult crystallised cognitive ability, which has not been comprehensively investigated. DESIGN: Two prospective cohort studies. PARTICIPANTS: Five thousand three hundred and sixty-two participants in the Medical Research Council National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD) Birth Cohort Study and 10 308 participants in the Whitehall II Occupational Cohort Study. MEASURES: Childhood SEP was measured by father's occupational SEP, early adulthood SEP by educational qualifications and adult SEP by own occupational SEP. Each life course model was compared with a saturated model. RESULTS: Using multiple imputation to account for missing data, the sensitive period model, which contained childhood, early adulthood and adult SEP terms, with different coefficients, provided the best fit for both men and women in the NSHD and Whitehall II cohorts. Early adulthood SEP had the largest coefficient in NSHD women, whereas for NSHD men early adulthood and adult SEP had similar coefficients. In Whitehall II adult SEP had the largest effect size for both men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitive period with all three time periods was the most appropriate life course models for adult crystallised cognitive ability in both cohorts, including an effect of childhood SEP. It is important to directly compare the life course models to determine which is the most appropriate.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipRL was supported by an ESRC PhD studentship at University College London. The UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation and the US National Institutes of Health(R01HL36310, R01AG013196) have supported collection of data in the Whitehall II Study. JH is partially supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ES/K01336X/1). The MRC National Survey of Health and Development, MR and RH are funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12019/1, MC_UU_12019/2, MC_UU_12019/3).en_US
dc.format.extente014461 - ?en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Openen_US
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0)
dc.subjectcioeconomic positionen_US
dc.subjectcognitive functionen_US
dc.subjectcohort studiesen_US
dc.subjectlife courseen_US
dc.subjectAdulten_US
dc.subjectAge Factorsen_US
dc.subjectAgeden_US
dc.subjectCognitionen_US
dc.subjectFemaleen_US
dc.subjectHumansen_US
dc.subjectIntelligenceen_US
dc.subjectMaleen_US
dc.subjectMiddle Ageden_US
dc.subjectModels, Structuralen_US
dc.subjectProspective Studiesen_US
dc.subjectSocial Classen_US
dc.subjectUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.titleThe effect of life course socioeconomic position on crystallised cognitive ability in two large UK cohort studies: a structured modelling approach.en_US
dc.typeArticle
dc.rights.holder© Article author(s) 2017.
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014461en_US
pubs.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28576891en_US
pubs.issue5en_US
pubs.notesNot knownen_US
pubs.publication-statusPublished onlineen_US
pubs.volume7en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record