4.7 Article

Change in income and change in self-rated health: Systematic review of studies using repeated measures to control for confounding bias

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 72, 期 2, 页码 193-201

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.10.029

关键词

Income; Health change; Longitudinal studies; Systematic review; Self-rated health

资金

  1. Health Research Council of New Zealand [08/048]
  2. University of Otago Research Committee

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is generally assumed that income is strongly and positively associated with health. However, much of the evidence supporting this assumption comes from cross-sectional data or analyses that have not fully accounted for biases from confounding and health selection (the reverse pathway from health to income). This paper reports results of a systematic review of panel and longitudinal studies investigating whether changes in income led to changes in self-rated health (SRH) in adults. A variety of electronic databases were searched, up until January 2010, and thirteen studies were included, using data from five different panel or longitudinal studies. The majority of studies found a small, positive and statistically significant association of income with SRH, which was much reduced after controlling for unmeasured confounders and/or health selection. Residual bias, particularly from measurement error, probably reduced this association to the null. Most studies investigated short-term associations between income and SRH or the effect of temporary (usually one year) income changes or shocks, so did not rule out possibly stronger associations between health and longer-term average income or income lagged over longer time periods. Nevertheless, the true causal short-term relationship between income and health, estimated by longitudinal studies of income change and SRH that control for confounding, may be much smaller than that suggested by previous, mostly cross-sectional, research. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.7
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