| Literature DB >> 31467460 |
Alexi Gugushvili1, Martin McKee2, Michael Murphy3, Aytalina Azarova4, Darja Irdam4, Katarzyna Doniec4, Lawrence King4.
Abstract
Research on intergenerational social mobility and health-related behaviours yields mixed findings. Depending on the direction of mobility and the type of mechanisms involved, we can expect positive or negative association between intergenerational mobility and health-related behaviours. Using data from a retrospective cohort study, conducted in more than 100 towns across Belarus, Hungary and Russia, we fit multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regressions with two measures of health-related behaviours: binge drinking and smoking. The main explanatory variable, intergenerational educational mobility is operationalised in terms of relative intergenerational educational trajectories based on the prevalence of specified qualifications in parental and offspring generations. In each country the associations between intergenerational educational mobility, binge drinking and smoking was examined with incidence rate ratios and predicted probabilities, using multiply imputed dataset for missing data and controlling for important confounders of health-related behaviours. We find that intergenerational mobility in relative educational attainment has varying association with binge drinking and smoking and the strength and direction of these effects depend on the country of analysis, the mode of mobility, the gender of respondents and the type of health-related behaviour. Along with accumulation and Falling from Grace hypotheses of the consequences of intergenerational mobility, our findings suggest that upward educational mobility in certain instances might be linked to improved health-related behaviours.Entities:
Keywords: Binge drinking; Demographic cohort study; Education; Relative intergenerational mobility; Smoking
Year: 2018 PMID: 31467460 PMCID: PMC6694039 DOI: 10.1007/s11205-017-1834-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Soc Indic Res ISSN: 0303-8300
Fig. 1Theoretical model linking intergenerational mobility and individuals’ health.
Source: Authors’ interpretation
Descriptive statistics of dependent variables, %.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the PrivMort data set
| Men | Women | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belarus | Hungary | Russia | Belarus | Hungary | Russia | |
| Binge drinking | ||||||
| Yes | 24.5 | 12.5 | 26.4 | 6.6 | 2.2 | 5.2 |
| No | 75.5 | 87.5 | 73.6 | 93.4 | 97.8 | 94.8 |
| In totals | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Smoking | ||||||
| Yes | 40.3 | 29.4 | 42.9 | 3.6 | 15.2 | 4.5 |
| No | 59.7 | 70.6 | 57.1 | 96.4 | 84.8 | 95.5 |
| In totals | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Relative education tertiles of parents and respondents, %.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the PrivMort data set
| Tertile | Belarus | Hungary | Russia | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parents | Respondents | Parents | Respondents | Parents | Respondents | |
| Men | ||||||
| Bottom | 52.3 | 46.3 | 45.5 | 47.0 | 47.7 | 43.8 |
| Middle | 17.0 | 33.6 | 29.6 | 31.7 | 21.1 | 39.0 |
| Top | 30.7 | 20.1 | 24.9 | 21.2 | 31.3 | 17.2 |
| In total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Women | ||||||
| Bottom | 66.0 | 46.6 | 51.3 | 63.3 | 57.1 | 43.5 |
| Middle | 13.0 | 35.2 | 28.9 | 21.0 | 19.0 | 41.6 |
| Top | 21.0 | 18.2 | 19.8 | 15.7 | 23.9 | 15.0 |
| In total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Fig. 2Comparing absolute and relative intergenerational educational mobility in Belarus, Hungary and Russia, %.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the PrivMort data set
Intergenerational educational trajectories in Belarus, Hungary and Russia, %.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the PrivMort data set
| Mobility trajectories | Men | Women | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belarus | Hungary | Russia | Belarus | Hungary | Russia | |
| Bottom tertile | ||||||
| Parent 1st → respondent 1st | 26.5 | 27.4 | 26.1 | 34.4 | 38.8 | 30.8 |
| Parent 2nd → respondent 1st | 8.9 | 12.9 | 8.8 | 5.6 | 17.2 | 6.8 |
| Parent 3rd → respondent 1st | 11.0 | 6.7 | 8.9 | 6.6 | 7.2 | 5.8 |
| Middle tertile | ||||||
| Parent 1st → respondent 2nd | 18.4 | 13.1 | 16.5 | 22.6 | 8.5 | 21.1 |
| Parent 2nd → respondent 2nd | 4.4 | 10.1 | 8.6 | 4.4 | 6.6 | 8.7 |
| Parent 3rd → respondent 2nd | 10.6 | 8.6 | 13.9 | 8.1 | 5.9 | 11.8 |
| Top tertile | ||||||
| Parent 1st → respondent 3rd | 7.5 | 5.0 | 5.1 | 9.0 | 4.1 | 5.3 |
| Parent 2nd → respondent 3rd | 3.6 | 6.6 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 5.0 | 3.5 |
| Parent 3rd → respondent 3rd | 9.1 | 9.6 | 8.5 | 6.3 | 6.6 | 6.3 |
| In total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Descriptive statistics of independent variables, %.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the PrivMort data set
| Men | Women | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belarus | Hungary | Russia | Belarus | Hungary | Russia | |
| Respondents’ age | ||||||
| 40–50 | 30.5 | 20.9 | 26.7 | 19.8 | 16.3 | 18.0 |
| 51–60 | 30.1 | 24.0 | 31.6 | 27.8 | 22.8 | 27.3 |
| 61–70 | 22.2 | 26.5 | 25.1 | 25.3 | 28.4 | 28.6 |
| 71–80 | 12.1 | 20.1 | 12.6 | 19.7 | 23.2 | 19.6 |
| 80 and over | 5.1 | 8.5 | 4.0 | 7.5 | 9.3 | 6.6 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Marital status | ||||||
| Single | 5.0 | 8.7 | 6.4 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 3.8 |
| Married | 69.6 | 60.4 | 70.6 | 50.6 | 46.8 | 50.3 |
| Separated/divorced | 14.7 | 15.8 | 12.5 | 11.9 | 14.1 | 11.8 |
| Widow/widower | 10.8 | 15.2 | 10.5 | 35.0 | 35.2 | 34.2 |
| In total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Owning house/flat in 1980s–2000s | ||||||
| Not at all | 5.4 | 1.8 | 6.1 | 4.5 | 2.2 | 6.1 |
| Only in one decade | 4.7 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 2.8 |
| In two decades | 11.7 | 4.6 | 8.8 | 11.6 | 4.8 | 9.4 |
| Throughout | 78.2 | 92.1 | 82.7 | 80.5 | 91.5 | 81.8 |
| In total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Owning car in 1980s–2000s | ||||||
| Not at all | 39.9 | 34.3 | 44.6 | 58.2 | 45.9 | 62.2 |
| Only in one decade | 17.6 | 9.0 | 15.9 | 13.7 | 9.7 | 12.6 |
| In two decades | 21.3 | 16.2 | 18.0 | 14.6 | 14.5 | 12.3 |
| Throughout | 21.2 | 40.5 | 21.5 | 13.5 | 29.9 | 12.9 |
| In total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Work status | ||||||
| Working | 55.6 | 37.6 | 49.6 | 37.4 | 27.0 | 35.3 |
| Not working | 44.4 | 62.4 | 50.4 | 62.6 | 73.0 | 64.7 |
| In total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Supervisory responsibilities | ||||||
| Yes | 24.3 | 9.6 | 23.5 | 19.3 | 6.6 | 19.7 |
| No | 75.7 | 90.4 | 76.5 | 80.7 | 93.4 | 80.3 |
| In total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Self-employment | ||||||
| Yes | 6.6 | 3.7 | 5.8 | 3.0 | 1.9 | 2.8 |
| No | 93.4 | 96.3 | 94.3 | 97.1 | 98.1 | 97.2 |
| In total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Religious denomination | ||||||
| Orthodox | 83.3 | – | 89.3 | 84.9 | – | 95.0 |
| Non-Orthodox Christian | 11.7 | 84.9 | 1.1 | 13.7 | 90.7 | 1.0 |
| Muslim | 0.3 | – | 1.1 | 0.1 | – | 1.2 |
| Other | 4.7 | 15.1 | 8.5 | 1.3 | 9.3 | 2.8 |
| In total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Intergenerational educational mobility, binge drinking and smoking among men.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the PrivMort data set
| Binge drinking | Smoking | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belarus | Hungary | Russia | Belarus | Hungary | Russia | |
| Mobility trajectories | ||||||
| Bottom (ref: non-mobile in 1st tertile) | ||||||
| Parent 2nd → respondent 1st | 0.97 |
| 1.05 | 0.98 | 0.91 | 1.05 |
| (0.85, 1.10) |
| (0.91, 1.22) | (0.89, 1.08) | (0.82, 1.01) | (0.96, 1.15) | |
| Parent 3rd → respondent 1st |
|
| 1.15 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 1.03 |
|
|
| (0.93, 1.43) | (0.88, 1.07) | (0.82, 1.04) | (0.94, 1.14) | |
| Middle (ref: non-mobile in 2nd tertile) | ||||||
| Parent 1st → respondent 2nd | 1.13 |
| 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.96 |
| (0.87, 1.48) |
| (0.74, 1.14) | (0.78, 1.14) | (0.84, 1.11) | (0.87, 1.06) | |
| Parent 3rd → respondent 2nd | 1.03 | 1.09 | 1.16 | 0.99 | 0.90 | 1.08 |
| (0.78, 1.37) | (0.81, 1.48) | (0.90, 1.49) | (0.79, 1.23) | (0.75, 1.09) | (0.96, 1.22) | |
| Top (ref: non-mobile in 3rd tertile) | ||||||
| Parent 1st → respondent 3rd | 0.88 | 1.04 | 0.75 |
| 0.96 | 0.75 |
| (0.63, 1.22) | (0.68, 1.59) | (0.49, 1.15) |
| (0.69, 1.32) | (0.55, 1.02) | |
| Parent 2nd → respondent 3rd | 0.92 | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.87 | 1.08 | 0.92 |
| (0.68, 1.23) | (0.65, 1.50) | (0.78, 1.23) | (0.66, 1.16) | (0.84, 1.41) | (0.74, 1.14) | |
| Marital status (ref: married) | ||||||
| Single | 1.10 | 1.18 | 0.94 | 1.04 | 1.09 | 0.91 |
| (0.89, 1.37) | (0.96, 1.46) | (0.78, 1.13) | (0.95, 1.14) | (0.96, 1.23) | (0.81, 1.03) | |
| Separated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Widow/widower | 0.92 | 1.08 | 0.94 | 1.02 | 1.11 | 0.95 |
| (0.73, 1.16) | (0.87, 1.33) | (0.82, 1.08) | (0.88, 1.18) | (0.98, 1.25) | (0.84, 1.08) | |
| Wealth | ||||||
| Owing a house | 0.96 |
| 0.97 | 1.03 |
| 1.02 |
| (0.87, 1.06) |
| (0.86, 1.09) | (0.98, 1.09) |
| (0.99, 1.06) | |
| Owing a car | 0.99 | 0.98 | 0.95 | 0.99 |
|
|
| (0.94, 1.04) | (0.92, 1.03) | (0.89, 1.02) | (0.97, 1.01) |
|
| |
| Labour market | ||||||
| Working (ref: not working) | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.96 |
|
| 0.95 |
| (0.79, 1.14) | (0.80, 1.04) | (0.83, 1.12) |
|
| (0.87, 1.04) | |
| Supervisor status (ref: no) | 0.99 | 1.13 | 0.88 | 0.94 | 0.86 |
|
| (0.83, 1.18) | (0.89, 1.43) | (0.77, 1.01) | (0.89, 1.00) | (0.74, 1.00) |
| |
| Self-employed (ref: no) | 1.03 | 1.00 | 1.08 |
| 0.95 | 1.04 |
| (0.84, 1.25) | (0.75, 1.31) | (0.90, 1.28) |
| (0.78, 1.15) | (0.96, 1.13) | |
| Religion | ||||||
| Other Christian (ref: Orthodox) | 0.97 | – | 0.81 | 0.89 | – | 0.74 |
| (0.84, 1.13) | – | (0.55, 1.18) | (0.80, 1.00) | – | (0.51, 1.07) | |
| Muslim | 0.64 | – | 0.79 | 0.70 | – | 0.97 |
| (0.22, 1.87) | – | (0.58, 1.09) | (0.37, 1.33) | – | (0.78, 1.22) | |
| Other | 0.88 |
| 1.05 | 0.90 |
| 1.08 |
| (0.70, 1.10) |
| (0.89, 1.24) | (0.75, 1.07) |
| (0.98, 1.20) | |
| Intercept |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Random intercept |
|
|
| 0.01 |
| 0.01 |
|
|
|
| (− 0.00, 0.01) |
| (− 0.00, 0.02) | |
| ICC | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| Total observations/towns | 4082/20 | 8457/52 | 6356/30 | 4082/20 | 8457/52 | 6356/30 |
Incidence rate ratios from multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regressions. For each country and health-related behaviour three separate models are fitted by changing reference category to non-mobile individuals in the bottom, middle and the top educational tertile. 95% CIs are in parentheses, significant associations are shown in bold
Intergenerational educational mobility, binge drinking and smoking among women.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the PrivMort data set
| Binge drinking | Smoking | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belarus | Hungary | Russia | Belarus | Hungary | Russia | |
| Mobility trajectories | ||||||
| Bottom (ref: non-mobile in 1st tertile) | ||||||
| Parent 2nd → respondent 1st | 1.05 | 1.15 |
|
|
| 1.20 |
| (0.79, 1.41) | (0.84, 1.57) |
|
|
| (0.98, 1.47) | |
| Parent 3rd → respondent 1st | 0.91 | 0.87 | 0.91 |
| 0.92 | 1.12 |
| (0.69, 1.20) | (0.52, 1.45) | (0.69, 1.20) |
| (0.81, 1.03) | (0.90, 1.41) | |
| Middle (ref: non-mobile in 2nd tertile) | ||||||
| Parent 1st → respondent 2nd | 1.11 | 1.15 | 1.01 | 0.75 | 1.14 | 0.85 |
| (0.75, 1.65) | (0.69, 1.92) | (0.78, 1.30) | (0.41, 1.38) | (0.97, 1.32) | (0.68, 1.06) | |
| Parent 3rd → respondent 2nd | 1.02 | 1.33 | 1.23 | 1.22 |
| 1.19 |
| (0.70, 1.49) | (0.80, 2.21) | (0.93, 1.63) | (0.70, 2.15) |
| (0.91, 1.54) | |
| Top (ref: non-mobile in 3rd tertile) | ||||||
| Parent 1st → respondent 3rd | 1.27 | 0.81 | 1.05 | 0.83 | 1.14 | 1.03 |
| (0.94, 1.72) | (0.40, 1.62) | (0.73, 1.51) | (0.46, 1.51) | (0.90, 1.45) | (0.66, 1.63) | |
| Parent 2nd → respondent 3rd | 1.17 | 1.28 | 1.05 | 0.67 |
| 0.96 |
| (0.65, 2.11) | (0.72, 2.30) | (0.73, 1.52) | (0.43, 1.05) |
| (0.65, 1.40) | |
| Marital status (ref: married) | ||||||
| Single | 1.07 | 1.22 |
|
|
|
|
| (0.86, 1.32) | (0.90, 1.65) |
|
|
|
| |
| Separated | 1.12 | 1.17 | 1.04 |
|
|
|
| (0.93, 1.35) | (0.88, 1.56) | (0.89, 1.21) |
|
|
| |
| Widow/widower | 0.94 | 0.72 | 0.98 |
| 1.07 |
|
| (0.76, 1.16) | (0.47, 1.09) | (0.84, 1.16) |
| (0.97, 1.19) |
| |
| Wealth | ||||||
| Owing a house |
|
| 0.91 | 0.95 |
| 0.93 |
|
|
| (0.83, 1.00) | (0.87, 1.02) |
| (0.87, 1.00) | |
| Owing a car | 1.04 | 0.96 | 1.03 | 0.95 |
|
|
| (0.97, 1.12) | (0.88, 1.04) | (0.96, 1.09) | (0.90, 1.01) |
|
| |
| Labour market | ||||||
| Working (ref: not working) | 1.07 | 1.27 | 1.00 | 0.81 | 0.97 | 1.01 |
| (0.88, 1.30) | (0.89, 1.81) | (0.83, 1.20) | (0.66, 1.00) | (0.90, 1.04) | (0.80, 1.27) | |
| Supervisor status (ref: no) | 0.96 |
| 0.87 | 1.09 | 0.92 | 1.04 |
| (0.84, 1.09) |
| (0.73, 1.03) | (0.91, 1.31) | (0.78, 1.08) | (0.90, 1.21) | |
| Self-employed (ref: no) | 1.14 | 1.16 | 1.16 | 1.70 | 1.17 |
|
| (0.79, 1.65) | (0.45, 3.01) | (0.82, 1.64) | (1.27, 2.28) | (0.92, 1.49) |
| |
| Religion | ||||||
| Other Christian (ref: Orthodox) | 0.93 | – | 0.73 | 1.04 | – | 1.10 |
| (0.70, 1.24) | – | (0.25, 2.16) | (0.86, 1.27) | – | (0.67, 1.81) | |
| Muslim | 0.00 | – | 0.64 | 0.88 | – | 1.36 |
| (0.00, 0.00) | – | (0.37, 1.08) | (0.44, 1.76) | – | (0.75, 2.47) | |
| Other | 0.74 |
| 1.08 | 0.94 |
|
|
| (0.42, 1.28) |
| (0.70, 1.66) | (0.63, 1.39) |
|
| |
| Intercept |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Random intercept | 0.67 |
|
|
|
|
|
| (− 0.05, 1.39) |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ICC | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.09 |
| Total observations/towns | 11,918/20 | 15,615/52 | 17,713/30 | 11,918/20 | 15,615/52 | 17,713/30 |
Incidence rate ratios from multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regressions. For each country and health-related behaviour three separate models are fitted by changing reference category to non-mobile individuals in the bottom, middle and the top educational tertile. 95% CIs are in parentheses, significant associations are shown in bold
Fig. 3Predicted probabilities of a binge drinking and b smoking among men. Notes Error bars represent 95% CIs. qX → qX represent intergenerational trajectories from parental educational tertile to respondents educational tertile.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the PrivMort data set
Fig. 4Predicted probabilities of a binge drinking and b smoking among women. Notes Error bars represent 95% CIs. qX → qX represent intergenerational trajectories from parental educational tertile to respondents educational tertile.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on the PrivMort data set