Skip to main content

Table 1 summary of articles included in the systematic review categorized by life course model

From: Life course socio-economic position and quality of life in adulthood: a systematic review of life course models

First author, year, reference Country Study design N Quality Rating Gender Measures of SEP Model Outcomes Results
Mäkinen 2006 [32] Finland Repeat cross-sectional N = 8970 Average 20% male Childhood SEP: parent’s education level & childhood circumstances. Adulthood SEP: own education level A SF-36 MCS No support.
Otero-Rodríguez 2010 [40] Spain Cohort N = 2117 Average 45% male Childhood SEP: father’s occupation. Own education level. Adulthood SEP: current/last occupation of household head A Change in SF-36 MCS Support for accumulation model – risk of decline in MCS increased linearly with increasing number of low SEPs.
Singh-Manoux 2004 [6] United Kingdom Cohort N = 6128 Average 72% male Childhood SEP: father’s occupation & childhood socioeconomic circumstances. Own education level. Adulthood SEP: employment grade A SF-36 MCS Support for accumulation model among men only – risk of being in lowest quintile increased linearly with increasing number of low SEPs.
Huurre 2003 [41] Finland Cohort N = 1592 Higher 45% male Childhood SEP: father's occupation. Adulthood SEP: own occupation L Wellbeing Support for latent model among women only – lower childhood SEP associated with poorer wellbeing.
Marmot 1998 [38] United States Cross-sectional N = 3032 Average 48% male Childhood SEP: parent’s education level. Adulthood SEP: own education level L Wellbeing Some support for latent model among women who had mothers with lowest education – lower childhood SEP associated with poorer wellbeing.
Otero-Rodríguez 2010 [40] Spain Cohort N = 2117 Average 45% male Childhood SEP: father’s occupation. Own education level. Adulthood SEP: current/last occupation of household head L Change in SF-36 MCS Support for latent model – low childhood SEP associated with highest risk of decline and improvement in MCS.
Laaksonen 2007 [31] Finland Repeat cross-sectional N = 8970 Average 20% male Childhood SEP: parent’s education level. Adulthood SEP: own education level, income & occupation L & P SF-36 MCS No evidence for latent model in men or women. Support for pathway model in men & women – higher adulthood SEP associated with increased risk of low MCS.
Mäkinen 2006 [32] Finland Repeat cross-sectional N = 8970 Average 20% male Childhood SEP: parent’s education level. Adulthood SEP: own education level L & P SF-36 MCS Support for latent model in women only – higher childhood SEP associated with increased risk of low MCS. No support for pathway model in men or women.
Blane 2004 [39] United Kingdom Cohort N = 254 Poorer 47% male Inter-generational mobility: father’s occupation & respondent’s longest held occupation. Intra-generational mobility: respondent’s occupation aged 25 & 50 years SM (inter & intra) CASP-19 No support.
Otero-Rodríguez 2010 [40] Spain Cohort N = 2117 Average 45% male Inter-generational mobility: father’s occupation & current or last occupation of household head SM (inter) Change in SF-36 MCS Support for social mobility – upwardly mobile more likely to experience change in MCS scores. No evidence for downwardly mobile.
Runyan 1980 [37] United States Cohort N = 91 Poorer 49% male Inter-generational mobility: father’s occupation & respondent’s occupation aged around 38 years SM (inter) Life satisfaction No support.
Breeze 2001 [35] United Kingdom Cohort N = 7041 Average 100% male Intra-generational mobility: employment grade at baseline & employment grade at retirement SM (intra) SF-36 MCS Support for intra-generational effect – upwardly mobile less likely to have poor MCS score.
Houle 2011 [42] United States Cohort N = 4992 Higher 100% male Intra-generational mobility: occupation aged around 36 years & 52 years SM (intra) Wellbeing No support intra-generational effect – mobile individuals more likely to report wellbeing resembling current class than prior class.
Huang and Sverke 2007 [33] Sweden Cohort N = 291 Average 100% female Intra-generational mobility: respondent’s occupational history from ages 16 to 43 years SM (intra) Life satisfaction No support.
Johansson 2007 [34] Sweden Cohort N = 514 Average 100% female Intra-generational mobility: respondent’s occupational history from ages 16 to 43 SM (intra) Life satisfaction & wellbeing Life satisfaction: no support. Wellbeing: some support – downwardly mobile reported lower wellbeing.
  1. A = accumulation; Inter = inter-generational; Intra = Intra-generational; L = latent; MCS = mental component summary; N = Sample size; P = pathway; SEP = socio-economic position; SF-36 = short-form 36; SM = social mobility.