4.3 Article

Social mobility, marital status, and mortality risk in an adult life course perspective:: The Malmo preventive project

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 412-423

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/14034940510005905

关键词

census; life course; marital status; mortality; population-based; social class

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: Adverse social factors predict increased mortality. This study aimed to assess the influence of social class and marital status on mortality, adding an adult life course perspective. Methods: In total, 32,907 males and 20,204 females were evaluated based on census data in Malmo, Sweden. Of these subjects, 22,444 males and 10,902 females also took part in health screening. The main outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality rates in subgroups based on social class and marital status, either measured once or repeatedly in adult life. Results were based on a total of 522,807 years of follow-up in men ( 5,761 deaths) and 239,815 in women ( 1,354 deaths). Results: Total and cardiovascular mortality were significantly higher in manual male employees with age-adjusted risk ratios (RR) of 1.7 (95% CI 1.5-1.9) and 1.6 (1.3-2.0) in skilled manual workers, and 2.0 (1.7-2.2) and 1.9 (1.6-2.3) in unskilled manual workers, compared with high-level non-manual employees. The differences remained after adjustment for baseline risk factors and prevalent cardiovascular disease, and were similar for women. Increased mortality risk was also documented for subjects who were divorced or unmarried ( adjusted for social class), as well as being downward socially mobile or in a permanent low social class ( manual) position. Conclusions: Social class based on occupation, either measured once or repeatedly in adult life, is associated with marked differences in mortality risk in middle-aged subjects. People who remain married/cohabiting or remarry are at lower risk of early death than people who remain unmarried or divorced.

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

4.3
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