| Literature DB >> 29373554 |
Qing Wang1, Huyang Zhang2,3, John A Rizzo4, Hai Fang5.
Abstract
Childhood health in China was poor in the 1950s and 1960s because of limited nutrition. In the last three decades, China has distinguished itself through its tremendous economic growth and improvements in health and nutrition. However, prior to such growth, access to good nutrition was more variable, with potentially important implications, not only for childhood health, but also for adult health, because of its long-term effects lasting into adulthood. To shed light on these issues, this study examined the long-run association between childhood health and adult health outcomes among a middle-aged Chinese population and addresses the endogeneity of childhood health. A nationwide database from the 2011 China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) was employed. Three adult health outcomes variables were used: self-reported health status, cognition, and physical function. The local variation in grain production in the subjects' fetal period and the first 24 months following birth was employed as an instrument for childhood health in order to correct for its endogeneity. Childhood health recalled by the respondents was positively and significantly associated with their adult health outcomes in terms of self-reported health status, cognition, and physical function in single-equation estimates that did not correct for the endogeneity of childhood health. A good childhood health status increased the probabilities of good adult health, good adult cognitive function, and good adult physical function by 16% (95% CI: 13-18%), 13% (95% CI: 10-15%), and 14% (95% CI: 12-17%), respectively. After correcting for endogeneity, the estimated effects of good childhood health were consistent but stronger. We also studied the male and female populations separately, finding that the positive effects of childhood health on adult health were larger for males. In China, childhood health significantly affects adult health. This suggests that early interventions to promote childhood health will have long-term benefits in China and that health-care policies should consider their long-term impacts over the life cycle in addition to their effects on specific age groups.Entities:
Keywords: China; adult cognition; adult health; adult physical function; childhood health
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29373554 PMCID: PMC5858281 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15020212
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure A1The fluctuation in grain production by year.
Impact of self-rated health up to and including age 15 on health outcome: results from the first stage (the Logistic model) of the 2-stage Residual Inclusion estimation (2SRI).
| Variable | Self-Rated Health Up to and Including Age 15 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient (95% CI) | |
| The fluctuation of grain production (instrumental variable) | 2.95 (2.48–3.42) |
| Education level (Junior high school or below serves as a reference group) | |
| Senior high school | 0.25 (0.07–0.43) |
| College or above | −0.25 (−0.92–0.43) |
| Current smoker | 0.73 (0.59–0.87) |
| Current drinker | −0.03 (−0.18–0.13) |
| Not married | 0.77 (0.59–0.96) |
| Male | −0.26 (−0.37–0.14) |
| Aged 45–50 | 1.04 (0.77–1.30) |
| Aged 50–55 | 0.93 (0.62–1.25) |
| Aged 55–60 | −0.32 (−0.58–0.06) |
| Non-famine cohort | −0.65 (0.84–0.46) |
| Father’s education level (Junior high school or below serves as a reference group) | |
| Senior high school | 0.28 (−0.12–0.67) |
| College or above | −0.10 (−0.33–0.13) |
| The log of number of siblings | −0.18 (−0.31–0.06) |
| Father lived longer than 65 years | 0.27 (0.09–0.45) |
Note: Provinces' fixed effects were included. Note on the instrumental variable: the birth year’s fluctuation of grain production in the birth area was positively correlated with childhood health status and was statistically significant at the 1% level.
Impact of self-rated health up to and including age 15 on health outcome: results from the first stage (the ordinary least-square model) of the 2-stage least-squares estimation (2SLS).
| Variable | Self-Rated Health Up to and Including Age 15 |
|---|---|
| Coefficient (95% CI) | |
| The fluctuation of grain production (instrumental variable) | 0.58 (0.50–0.66) |
| Education level (Junior high school or below serves as a reference group) | |
| Senior high school | 0.04 (0.01–0.07) |
| College or above | −0.04 (−0.16–0.09) |
| Current smoker | 0.14 (0.11–0.16) |
| Current drinker | −0.01 (−0.03–0.02) |
| Aged 45–50 | 0.18 (0.14–0.23) |
| Aged 50–55 | 0.18 (0.14–0.23) |
| Aged 55–60 | −0.09 (−0.14–0.04) |
| Non-famine cohort | −0.12 (−0.16–0.09) |
| Male | −0.05 (−0.07–0.03) |
| Not married | 0.15 (0.12–0.18) |
| Number of sibling | −0.03 (−0.06–0.01) |
| Father lived longer than 65 years | 0.05 (0.02–0.08) |
| Father’s education level (Junior high school or below serves as a reference group) | |
| Senior high school | 0.04 (−0.02–0.11) |
| College or above | −0.02 (−0.06–0.02) |
| Test of excluded instruments | |
| F statistic | 183.88 |
| Under-identification tests | |
| Anderson canon. corr. LM statistic | 180.57 |
| Weak identification test | |
| Cragg–Donald Wald F statistic | 183.88 |
| Weak-instrument robust inference | |
| Anderson–Rubin Wald test: F statistic | 207.80 |
| Anderson–Rubin Wald test: Chi-square statistic | 209.04 |
| Stock-Wright LM | 203.43 |
Notes: Std. errors are robust. This table shows results from the first stage of the two-stage least-squares (2SLS) estimation, as we would like to show the validity of our instrumental variable (even if we were not able to implement the two-stage least-squares estimation due to the binary nature of adult health outcomes in the second stage). The instrumental variable is positively related to childhood health status (p < 0.01). The test of the joint significance of the instruments yielded an F-statistic of 247.32 (p < 0.01). A number of statistical tests also indicated that our instrument was valid (assessments by the excluded-instrument test, underidentification test, weak-identification test and weak-instrument-robustness test). Provinces' fixed effects were included.
Descriptive statistics.
| Variables | All Sample | Male | Female |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adult health outcomes | |||
| Self-reported health status (%) | |||
| Excellent | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Very good | 37 | 36 | 39 |
| Good | 24 | 19 | 32 |
| Fair | 10 | 9 | 12 |
| Poor | 26 | 33 | 15 |
| Good cognition (%) | 43 | 36 | 54 |
| Good physical Function (%) | 45 | 37 | 58 |
| Childhood health outcomes | |||
| Self-reported health status up to and including age 15 (%) | |||
| Excellent | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Very good | 34 | 28 | 43 |
| Good | 26 | 32 | 17 |
| Fair | 29 | 28 | 31 |
| Poor | 6 | 7 | 4 |
| Fluctuation of grain production (mean and SD) | −0.005 (0.15) | −0.003 (0.13) | −0.008 (0.17) |
| Other control variables | |||
| Education level (%) | |||
| Junior high school or below | 87 | 89 | 84 |
| Senior high school | 12 | 10 | 15 |
| College or above | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Current smoker (%) | 27 | 26 | 29 |
| Current drinker (%) | 19 | 16 | 24 |
| Not married (%) | 12 | 11 | 14 |
| Male (%) | 61 | 100 | 0 |
| Age (mean and SD) | 53.60 (5.07) | 54.05 (5.09) | 52.90 (4.96) |
| Father’s education level (%) | |||
| Junior high school or below | 92 | 95 | 88 |
| Senior high school | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| College or above | 6 | 1 | 8 |
| Number of siblings (mean and SD) | 3.97 (1.67) | 3.89 (1.56) | 4.08 (1.82) |
| The father lived longer than 65 years (%) | 11 | 8 | 16 |
| Exposure to the great famine | 60.73 | 61.78 | 59.09 |
Note: If the respondent’s self-reported health was “excellent”, “very good”, or “good”, the respondent was considered in good health.
Effects of childhood health status on adult health outcomes.
| Variable | Logistic Model | 2SRI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Reported Health Status | Good Cognition | Good Physical Function | Self-Reported Health Status | Good Cognition | Good Physical Function | |
| Odd Ratio (95% CI) | Odd Ratio (95% CI) | Odd Ratio (95% CI) | Odd Ratio (95% CI) | Odd Ratio (95% CI) | Odd Ratio (95% CI) | |
| Good childhood health | 1.95 | 1.74 | 1.84 | 37.67 | 5.32 | 7.45 |
| (1.73–2.20) | (1.55–1.96) | (1.64–2.07) | (24.88–57.03) | (3.60–7.87) | (5.00–11.12) | |
| The residual of the first stage | 0.20 | 0.54 | 0.46 | |||
| (0.16–0.25) | (0.44–0.67) | (0.37–0.58) | ||||
| Education level (Junior high school or below serves as the reference group) | ||||||
| Senior high school | 0.70 | 1.54 | 1.65 | 0.60 | 1.44 | 1.53 |
| (0.59–0.83) | (1.30–1.81) | (1.40–1.95) | (0.51–0.71) | (1.22–1.70) | (1.29–1.81) | |
| College or above | 0.53 | 1.70 | 2.58 | 0.61 | 1.78 | 2.74 |
| (0.27–1.04) | (0.94–3.07) | (1.33–4.99) | (0.31–1.20) | (0.98–3.23) | (1.41–5.31) | |
| Current smoker | 0.69 | 1.97 | 2.00 | 0.40 | 1.58 | 1.52 |
| (0.60–0.79) | (1.73–2.23) | (1.76–2.27) | (0.34–0.46) | (1.36–1.83) | (1.31–1.76) | |
| Current drinker | 1.07 | 1.18 | 1.23 | 1.06 | 1.18 | 1.23 |
| (0.92–1.24) | (1.03–1.36) | (1.07–1.42) | (0.91–1.23) | (1.02–1.36) | (1.06–1.42) | |
| Not married | 0.75 | 2.18 | 2.36 | 0.39 | 1.69 | 1.71 |
| (0.63–0.89) | (1.85–2.57) | (2.00–2.79) | (0.32–0.47) | (1.40–2.03) | (1.42–2.07) | |
| Male | 0.91 | 0.53 | 0.54 | 1.16 | 0.58 | 0.61 |
| (0.82–1.02) | (0.48–0.59) | (0.48–0.60) | (1.04–1.30) | (0.52–0.65) | (0.54–0.68) | |
| Aged 45–50 | 0.58 | 1.57 | 1.63 | 0.86 | 1.82 | 1.96 |
| (0.50–0.67) | (1.35–1.83) | (1.40–1.89) | (0.73–1.00) | (1.56–2.13) | (1.67–2.29) | |
| Aged 50–55 | 0.36 | 1.00 | 0.80 | 1.11 | 1.55 | 1.38 |
| (0.31–0.43) | (0.85–1.19) | (0.68–0.95) | (0.88–1.40) | (1.23–1.95) | (1.10–1.74) | |
| Aged 55–60 | 0.68 | 1.30 | 1.13 | 1.01 | 1.51 | 1.38 |
| (0.52–0.88) | (0.98–1.71) | (0.86–1.50) | (0.77–1.33) | (1.14–2.00) | (1.04–1.83) | |
| Non-famine cohort | 0.68 | 1.45 | 1.57 | 0.79 | 1.53 | 1.68 |
| (0.58–0.79) | (1.24–1.69) | (1.35–1.83) | (0.68–0.92) | (1.31–1.79) | (1.44–1.97) | |
| Father education (Junior high school or below serves as the reference group) | ||||||
| Senior high school | 0.82 | 1.12 | 0.99 | 0.71 | 1.06 | 0.92 |
| (0.58–1.15) | (0.80–1.56) | (0.70–1.39) | (0.50–1.01) | (0.76–1.48) | (0.66–1.29) | |
| College or above | 1.08 | 1.58 | 1.43 | 1.17 | 1.63 | 1.49 |
| (0.86–1.35) | (1.25–1.99) | (1.14–1.80) | (0.94–1.47) | (1.29–2.05) | (1.19–1.87) | |
| The log of number of siblings | 0.64 | 1.19 | 1.22 | 0.76 | 1.27 | 1.32 |
| (0.57–0.72) | (1.06–1.34) | (1.08–1.37) | (0.67–0.86) | (1.13–1.43) | (1.17–1.49) | |
| Father lived longer than 65 years | 0.92 | 1.28 | 1.17 | 0.74 | 1.18 | 1.05 |
| (0.77–1.10) | (1.09–1.52) | (0.99–1.39) | (0.62–0.88) | (0.99–1.40) | (0.89–1.25) | |
Note: If the respondent’s self-reported health was “excellent”, “very good”, or “good”, the respondent was considered as having had good childhood health. Provinces' fixed effects were included.
Impact of childhood health on adult health outcome without adjusting for child factors using the Logistic model.
| Variable | Logistic Model | 2SRI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Reported Health Status | Good Cognition | Good Physical Function | Self-Reported Health Status | Good Cognition | Good Physical Function | |
| Odd Ratio | Odd Ratio | Odd Ratio | Odd Ratio | Odd Ratio | Odd Ratio | |
| (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | (95% CI) | |
| Good childhood health | 1.99 | 1.69 | 1.77 | 67.19 | 27.34 | 22.96 |
| (1.77–2.24) | (1.51–1.90) | (1.58–1.98) | (36.09–125.08) | (14.80–50.49) | (12.37–42.61) | |
| The residual of the first stage | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.25 | |||
| (0.11–0.21) | (0.16–0.31) | (0.18–0.35) | ||||
| Education level (Junior high school or below serves as the reference group) | ||||||
| Senior high school | 0.73 | 1.52 | 1.63 | 0.59 | 1.29 | 1.40 |
| (0.61–0.86) | (1.29–1.79) | (1.38–1.91) | (0.50–0.70) | (1.09–1.52) | (1.18–1.65) | |
| College or above | 0.57 | 1.94 | 2.55 | 0.65 | 2.16 | 2.82 |
| (0.30–1.08) | (1.08–3.48) | (1.33–4.88) | (0.34–1.25) | (1.19–3.92) | (1.48–5.36) | |
| Current smoker | 0.66 | 1.98 | 2.04 | 0.35 | 1.17 | 1.25 |
| (0.58–0.75) | (1.75–2.24) | (1.80–2.30) | (0.29–0.41) | (0.99–1.38) | (1.06–1.48) | |
| Current drinker | 1.08 | 1.20 | 1.27 | 1.06 | 1.18 | 1.25 |
| (0.93–1.24) | (1.04–1.38) | (1.10–1.46) | (0.92–1.22) | (1.03–1.36) | (1.09–1.44) | |
| Not married | 0.72 | 2.22 | 2.41 | 0.35 | 1.23 | 1.40 |
| (0.61–0.86) | (1.89–2.61) | (2.04–2.84) | (0.28–0.44) | (1.00–1.51) | (1.13–1.73) | |
| Male | 0.97 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 1.27 | 0.62 | 0.62 |
| (0.87–1.07) | (0.45–0.55) | (0.46–0.57) | (1.13–1.42) | (0.55–0.69) | (0.56–0.70) | |
| Aged 45–50 | 0.53 | 1.75 | 1.84 | 0.91 | 2.67 | 2.73 |
| (0.46–0.60) | (1.52–2.02) | (1.60–2.13) | (0.77–1.08) | (2.27–3.16) | (2.31–3.22) | |
| Aged 50–55 | 0.27 | 1.35 | 1.17 | 1.26 | 4.61 | 3.65 |
| (0.24–0.30) | (1.20–1.52) | (1.04–1.32) | (0.94–1.70) | (3.42–6.21) | (2.70–4.93) | |
| Aged 55–60 | 0.51 | 1.69 | 1.62 | 1.00 | 2.84 | 2.62 |
| (0.41–0.65) | (1.32–2.16) | (1.26–2.08) | (0.77–1.31) | (2.18–3.71) | (2.00–3.44) | |
The marginal effects of good childhood health on adult health outcomes.
| Adult Health Outcomes | Good Childhood Health Marginal Effects | |
|---|---|---|
| Logistic Model Marginal Effects (95% CI) | 2SRI Model Marginal Effects (95% CI) | |
| Good self-reported health | 0.16 (0.13–0.18) | 0.60 (0.56–0.65) |
| Good cognition | 0.13 (0.10–0.15) | 0.38 (0.31–0.44) |
| Good physical function | 0.14 (0.12–0.17) | 0.43 (0.37–0.51) |
Effects of childhood health status on adult health outcomes by gender using 2SRI.
| Estimation Strategy | Variables | Male | Female | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self-Reported Health Status | Good Cognition | Good Physical Function | Self-Reported Health Status | Good Cognition | Good Physical Function | ||
| Odd Ratio (95% CI) | Odd Ratio (95% CI) | Odd Ratio (95% CI) | Odd Ratio (95% CI) | Odd Ratio (95% CI) | Odd Ratio (95% CI) | ||
| 2SRI | Good childhood health | 17.10 | 21.71 | 16.45 | 1.16 | 1.99 | 13.64 |
| (9.48–30.86) | (11.74–40.13) | (8.95–30.23) | (0.04–35.97) | (0.07–60.55) | (0.44–420.28) | ||
| The residual of the first stage | 0.41 | 0.34 | 0.37 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 0.27 | |
| (0.31–0.54) | (0.25–0.47) | (0.27–0.51) | (0.14–5.58) | (0.11–4.35) | (0.04–1.74) | ||
| Logistic model | Good childhood health | 2.83 | 2.67 | 2.39 | 0.89 | 0.99 | 1.24 |
| (2.32–3.43) | (2.21–3.22) | (1.98–2.88) | (0.76–1.05) | (0.84–1.17) | (1.05–1.46) | ||
Note: If the respondent’s self-reported health was “excellent”, “very good”, or “good”, the respondent was considered as having had good childhood health. Demographic, current socioeconomic status, current health behaviors, childhood factors, and provinces' fixed effects were included.