4.7 Article

Subjective social status and allostatic load among older people in England: A longitudinal analysis

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 320, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115749

关键词

Allostatic load; Health; ELSA; Subjective social status; Within -between models

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subjective social status is associated with health outcomes, but this study finds that the association disappears when examining temporal variation within individuals. Controlling for personality traits and parental education weakens the association but does not eliminate it. Further research is needed to understand the exact nature of the link between subjective status and health.
Background: Subjective social status has a known association with health, whereby better health outcomes are observed for those with higher perceived status. In this research, we offer new evidence on the status-health relationship using a rigorous methodological approach that considers both observed and unobserved confounders.Methods: We use 5 waves of data spanning 15 years from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and derive a measure of allostatic load with biomarkers as an objective measure of health. We apply 'within-between' panel regression models.Results: Models reveal the expected association between subjective status and health when comparing partici-pants (the 'between' estimate), but no association when examining temporal variation within participants (the 'within' estimate). When controlling for personality traits including optimism, and parental education, the 'be-tween' association between subjective status and allostatic load is reduced but does not disappear.Conclusions: Person-level confounders play some role in explaining the observed link between subjective status and health. The exact nature of the link, including the role of psychological pathways and early-life confounders, remains a question for future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据