独生子女的中年健康:英国三个具有全国代表性的队列中按兄弟姐妹人数分列的慢性病指标和生物标志物。

IF 6.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH International journal of epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-08-14 DOI:10.1093/ije/dyae119
Jenny Chanfreau, Katherine Keenan, Kieron Barclay, Alice Goisis
{"title":"独生子女的中年健康:英国三个具有全国代表性的队列中按兄弟姐妹人数分列的慢性病指标和生物标志物。","authors":"Jenny Chanfreau, Katherine Keenan, Kieron Barclay, Alice Goisis","doi":"10.1093/ije/dyae119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite persistent concerns about only children's disadvantage relative to individuals with siblings, existing health-related evidence is inconsistent. Recent evidence from Nordic countries about only children having poorer health outcomes may not apply elsewhere because selection processes differ across contexts. We investigate the midlife health of only children in the UK where one-child families tend to be socio-economically advantaged relative to large families.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the 1946, 1958 and 1970 British birth cohort studies, we examine various biomarkers and self-reported measures of chronic disease by sibship size when respondents are aged in their mid-40s, mid-50s and mid-60s. We estimate separate linear probability models for each cohort, age and outcome, adjusting for childhood and early adulthood circumstances.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found no evidence of only children differing from those with one, two or three or more siblings, at any age, in any of the cohorts, on: heart problems, hypertension, high triglycerides, high glycated haemoglobin or high C-reactive protein. However, compared with only children, the probability for cancer (0.019, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.002, 0.035; age 46/1970) and poor general health (0.060, CI: 0.015, 0.127; age 55/1958; and 0.110, CI: 0.052, 0.168; age 63/1946) was higher among those with three or more siblings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no consistent pattern of only child health disadvantage for midlife chronic disease outcomes across ages or cohorts in the UK. Research should focus on better understanding how sibship size differentials are contingent on context.</p>","PeriodicalId":14147,"journal":{"name":"International journal of epidemiology","volume":"53 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11371166/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The midlife health of only children: chronic disease indicators and biomarkers by sibship size in three nationally representative UK cohorts.\",\"authors\":\"Jenny Chanfreau, Katherine Keenan, Kieron Barclay, Alice Goisis\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ije/dyae119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite persistent concerns about only children's disadvantage relative to individuals with siblings, existing health-related evidence is inconsistent. Recent evidence from Nordic countries about only children having poorer health outcomes may not apply elsewhere because selection processes differ across contexts. We investigate the midlife health of only children in the UK where one-child families tend to be socio-economically advantaged relative to large families.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the 1946, 1958 and 1970 British birth cohort studies, we examine various biomarkers and self-reported measures of chronic disease by sibship size when respondents are aged in their mid-40s, mid-50s and mid-60s. We estimate separate linear probability models for each cohort, age and outcome, adjusting for childhood and early adulthood circumstances.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found no evidence of only children differing from those with one, two or three or more siblings, at any age, in any of the cohorts, on: heart problems, hypertension, high triglycerides, high glycated haemoglobin or high C-reactive protein. However, compared with only children, the probability for cancer (0.019, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.002, 0.035; age 46/1970) and poor general health (0.060, CI: 0.015, 0.127; age 55/1958; and 0.110, CI: 0.052, 0.168; age 63/1946) was higher among those with three or more siblings.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no consistent pattern of only child health disadvantage for midlife chronic disease outcomes across ages or cohorts in the UK. Research should focus on better understanding how sibship size differentials are contingent on context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14147,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"53 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11371166/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyae119\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyae119","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管人们一直担心独生子女相对于有兄弟姐妹的人来说处于不利地位,但现有的健康相关证据并不一致。最近北欧国家关于独生子女健康状况较差的证据可能不适用于其他国家,因为不同环境下的选择过程不同。我们对英国独生子女的中年健康状况进行了调查,在英国,独生子女家庭的社会经济条件往往优于大家庭:方法:我们利用 1946 年、1958 年和 1970 年英国出生队列研究,按照受访者 40 多岁、50 多岁和 60 多岁时的兄弟姐妹人数,研究了各种生物标志物和自我报告的慢性疾病指标。我们对每个队列、年龄和结果进行了单独的线性概率模型估计,并对童年和成年早期的情况进行了调整:我们没有发现任何证据表明独生子女与有一个、两个或三个或更多兄弟姐妹的人在任何年龄段、任何队列中有以下方面的差异:心脏病、高血压、高甘油三酯、高糖化血红蛋白或高 C 反应蛋白。然而,与独生子女相比,有三个或三个以上兄弟姐妹的人患癌症(0.019,95% 置信区间[CI]:0.002,0.035;46/1970 岁)和一般健康状况差(0.060,CI:0.015,0.127;55/1958 岁;0.110,CI:0.052,0.168;63/1946 岁)的概率更高:结论:在英国,不同年龄段或不同组群的中年慢性疾病结果中,并不存在一致的仅儿童健康不利的模式。研究重点应放在更好地了解兄弟姐妹人数差异如何取决于具体情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The midlife health of only children: chronic disease indicators and biomarkers by sibship size in three nationally representative UK cohorts.

Background: Despite persistent concerns about only children's disadvantage relative to individuals with siblings, existing health-related evidence is inconsistent. Recent evidence from Nordic countries about only children having poorer health outcomes may not apply elsewhere because selection processes differ across contexts. We investigate the midlife health of only children in the UK where one-child families tend to be socio-economically advantaged relative to large families.

Methods: Using the 1946, 1958 and 1970 British birth cohort studies, we examine various biomarkers and self-reported measures of chronic disease by sibship size when respondents are aged in their mid-40s, mid-50s and mid-60s. We estimate separate linear probability models for each cohort, age and outcome, adjusting for childhood and early adulthood circumstances.

Results: We found no evidence of only children differing from those with one, two or three or more siblings, at any age, in any of the cohorts, on: heart problems, hypertension, high triglycerides, high glycated haemoglobin or high C-reactive protein. However, compared with only children, the probability for cancer (0.019, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.002, 0.035; age 46/1970) and poor general health (0.060, CI: 0.015, 0.127; age 55/1958; and 0.110, CI: 0.052, 0.168; age 63/1946) was higher among those with three or more siblings.

Conclusions: There is no consistent pattern of only child health disadvantage for midlife chronic disease outcomes across ages or cohorts in the UK. Research should focus on better understanding how sibship size differentials are contingent on context.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International journal of epidemiology
International journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
2.60%
发文量
226
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Epidemiology is a vital resource for individuals seeking to stay updated on the latest advancements and emerging trends in the field of epidemiology worldwide. The journal fosters communication among researchers, educators, and practitioners involved in the study, teaching, and application of epidemiology pertaining to both communicable and non-communicable diseases. It also includes research on health services and medical care. Furthermore, the journal presents new methodologies in epidemiology and statistics, catering to professionals working in social and preventive medicine. Published six times a year, the International Journal of Epidemiology provides a comprehensive platform for the analysis of data. Overall, this journal is an indispensable tool for staying informed and connected within the dynamic realm of epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Development of a registration interval correction model for enhancing excess all-cause mortality surveillance during the COVID-19 pandemic It's personal: navigating research questions that stem from our lived experiences. Probabilistic bias analysis for exposure misclassification of household income by neighbourhood in a cohort of individuals with colorectal cancer. Ambient temperature exposure and rapid infant weight gain. Staggered interventions with no control groups.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1