4.6 Article

Repeatedly measured material and behavioral factors changed the explanation of socioeconomic inequalities in all-cause mortality

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 91, 期 -, 页码 137-145

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.006

关键词

Socioeconomic inequalities; Mortality; Health behaviors; Material factors; Repeated measurements; Time-dependent covariates

资金

  1. Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development [200500005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: We examined whether using repeatedly measured material and behavioral factors contributed differently to socioeconomic inequalities in all-cause mortality compared to one baseline measurement. Study Design and Setting: Data from the Dutch prospective GLOBE cohort were linked to mortality register data (1991-2013; N = 4,851). Socioeconomic position was measured at baseline by educational level and occupation. Material factors (financial difficulties, housing tenure, health insurance) and behavioral factors (smoking, leisure time physical activity, sports participation, and body mass index) were self-reported in 1991, 1997, and 2004. Cox proportional hazards regression and bootstrap methods were used to examine the contribution of baseline-only and time-varying risk factors to socioeconomic inequalities in mortality. Results: Men and women in the lowest educational and occupational groups were at an increased risk of dying compared to the highest groups. The contribution of material factors to socioeconomic inequalities in mortality was smaller when multiple instead of baseline-only measurements were used (25%-65% vs. 49%-93%). The contribution of behavioral factors was larger when multiple measurements were used (39%-51% vs. 19%-40%). Conclusion: Inclusion of time-dependent risk factors contributes to understanding socioeconomic inequalities in mortality, but careful examination of the underlying mechanisms and suitability of the model is required. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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