| Literature DB >> 30126406 |
Dinne S Christensen1,2, Trine Flensborg-Madsen3,4, Ellen Garde3,4,5, Åse M Hansen6,7, Jolene M Pedersen4,6, Erik L Mortensen3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mechanisms underlying the association of parental socioeconomic position with later life allostatic load remain unclear. The present study aims to examine potential pathways underlying this association: personality, social relations, intelligence and education.Entities:
Keywords: Allostatic load; Education; Intelligence; Parental socioeconomic position; Personality; Social relations
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30126406 PMCID: PMC6102839 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-5956-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Descriptive statistics of parental SEP, allostatic load, potential mediators and covariates including tests of differences according to parental SEP group
| Low parental SEP (1–5) | High parental SEP (6–8) | Full sample | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Mean (SD) |
| Mean (SD) |
|
| |
| Allostatic load (midlife) | 208 | 4.05 (2.73) | 123 | 2.72 (2.33) | 361 | < .001 |
| Parental SEP (infancy) | 208 | 3.56 (1.04) | 123 | 6.85 (0.77) | 331 | < .001 |
| Potential mediators (young adulthood) | ||||||
| EPQ neuroticism [0–23] | 185 | 7.58 (5.28) | 116 | 6.91 (4.61) | 326 | .26 |
| EPQ extraversion [0–21] | 185 | 14.7 (4.30) | 116 | 15.1 (4.07) | 327 | .38 |
| EPQ psychoticism [0–25] | 184 | 4.07 (2.41) | 116 | 4.20 (2.19) | 326 | .65 |
| EPQ lie scale [0–21] | 186 | 7.30 (3.24) | 115 | 6.70 (3.42) | 327 | .13 |
| Social relations satisfaction | 182 | 0.75 (0.80) | 114 | 0.80 (0.84) | 322 | .64 |
| Social relations dissatisfaction | 182 | 0.10 (0.32) | 114 | 0.13 (0.36) | 322 | .50 |
| Intelligence | 184 | 101.5 (13.7) | 115 | 110.5 (13.5) | 325 | < .001 |
| Years of education | 184 | 10.6 (1.48) | 115 | 11.9 (1.48) | 325 | < .001 |
| Covariates | ||||||
| Female sex (%) | 113 | 54.3 | 67 | 54.5 | 361 | .98 |
| Young adulthood age | 184 | 26.9 (4.23) | 115 | 26.6 (4.40) | 325 | .54 |
| Time of blood draw | 207 | 11.2 (2.30) | 123 | 11 (2.37) | 360 | .29 |
| Fasting (%) | 139 | 66.8 | 86 | 69.9 | 359 | .49 |
| Maternal smoking (%) | 87 | 41.8 | 41 | 33.3 | 354 | .14 |
| Complications at birth (%) | 16 | 7.69 | 10 | 8.13 | 360 | .90 |
| Maternal BMI | 189 | 22.2 (3.36) | 117 | 21.3 (2.26) | 334 | .014 |
| Adult SEP | 204 | 3.24 (1.45) | 118 | 2.49 (1.39) | 352 | < .001 |
Note. SEP = Socioeconomic position. EPQ = Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. BMI = Body Mass Index
at-tests or chi-square tests
Fig. 1Direct and indirect paths in Model 1. Mediators adjusted for sex and young adulthood age. AL adjusted for fasting status within two hours before blood draw and time of blood draw. Path coefficients are standardized. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Fig. 2Direct and indirect paths in Model 2. Mediators adjusted for sex and young adulthood age. AL adjusted for fasting status within two hours before blood draw and time of blood draw. Path coefficients are standardized. †p < .10; * p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Fig. 3Direct and indirect paths in Model 3. Mediators adjusted for sex and young adulthood age. AL adjusted for fasting status within two hours before blood draw and time of blood draw. Path coefficients are standardized. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Fig. 4Direct and indirect paths in Model 4. Mediators adjusted for sex and young adulthood age. AL adjusted for fasting status within two hours before blood draw and time of blood draw. Path coefficients are standardized. †p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Indirect and direct effects of parental SEP on midlife allostatic load, adjusted for covariates (N = 361)
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | ||
| Indirect effects | − 0.002 [− 0.023, 0.019] | .87 |
| EPQ neuroticism | − 0.005 [− 0.015, 0.006] | .36 |
| EPQ extraversion | 0.004 [− 0.011, 0.019] | .59 |
| EPQ psychoticism | −0.002 [− 0.011, 0.006] | .61 |
| EPQ lie scale | 0.001 [− 0.009, 0.012] | .80 |
| Direct effect | − 0.237 [− 0.339, − 0.136] | < .001 |
| Total effect | −0.239 [− 0.340, − 0.138] | < .001 |
| Model 2 | ||
| Indirect effects | −0.002 [− 0.019, 0.014] | .79 |
| Social relations satisfaction | −0.003 [− 0.015, 0.008] | .53 |
| Social relations dissatisfaction | 0.001 [−0.009, 0.011] | .81 |
| Direct effect | −0.233 [− 0.333, − 0.132] | < .001 |
| Total effect | − 0.235 [− 0.337, − 0.133] | < .001 |
| Model 3 | ||
| Indirect effects | −0.131 [− 0.187, − 0.075] | < .001 |
| Intelligence | 0.020 [− 0.021, 0.061] | .34 |
| Years of education | −0.151 [− 0.214, − 0.088] | < .001 |
| Direct effect | −0.111 [− 0.217, − 0.005] | .040 |
| Total effect | −0.242 [− 0.343, − 0.141] | < .001 |
| Model 4 | ||
| Indirect effects | −0.133 [− 0.193, − 0.074] | < .001 |
| EPQ neuroticism | − 0.005 [− 0.014, 0.005] | .37 |
| EPQ extraversion | 0.004 [− 0.010, 0.017] | .58 |
| EPQ psychoticism | −0.002 [− 0.009, 0.006] | .70 |
| EPQ lie scale | 0.009 [−0.006, 0.023] | .24 |
| Social relations satisfaction | −0.003 [− 0.016, 0.009] | .62 |
| Social relations dissatisfaction | 0.002 [−0.009, 0.014] | .68 |
| Intelligence | 0.017 [−0.024, 0.058] | .42 |
| Years of education | −0.156 [− 0.218, − 0.094] | < .001 |
| Direct effect | − 0.109 [− 0.210, − 0.007] | .036 |
| Total effect | −0.242 [− 0.343, − 0.141] | < .001 |
Note. SEP = Socioeconomic position. EPQ = Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
aStandardized beta coefficients reported