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}
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.
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.