Social inequality in coronary heart disease: A comparison of occupational classifications
Social inequality in coronary heart disease: A comparison of occupational classifications
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00141-5
复制
发表时间：
1998-08-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Chandola, T
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chandola, T
英国注册总署的社会分类因缺乏解释价值而受到强烈批评。此外，对冠心病（CHD）结局中社会不平等的研究经常发现不平等措施与传统CHD风险因素无法解释的心脏病之间的关联。替代职业分类，如埃里克森-戈德索普模式和剑桥量表，可以用来探索潜在的因果关系的叙述，解释这种残留的关联。英国成人纵向研究的结果显示，剑桥量表与CHD的关联性最强，其部分优势是由于其与CHD相关健康行为的强关联。按伴侣职业分类的女性与冠心病的关联性比按自己职业分类的女性更强。工作压力可能不能解释CHD中观察到的社会不平等。剑桥量表显示出比RGSC更强的与CHD的线性相关模式，应该被纳入英国健康方面社会不平等的其他研究中。(C)1998爱思唯尔科技有限公司版权所有。
The British Registrar General's Social Classification has been strongly criticised for its lack of explanatory value. Furthermore, studies of social inequality in coronary heart disease (CHD) outcomes have often found associations between measures of inequality and heart disease unaccounted by conventional CHD risk factors. Alternative occupational classifications such as the Erikson-Goldthorpe schema and the Cambridge scale could be used to explore potential causal narratives which explain such residual associations. Results from a longitudinal study of adults in Britain show that the Cambridge scale has the strongest association with CHD and part of its strength is due to its strong association with CHD related health behaviours. Women classified by their partner's occupation had stronger associations with CHD compared to classifications by their own occupation. Job strain may not account for the observed social inequalities in CHD. The Cambridge scale shows stronger patterns of linear association with CHD than the RGSC and should be included in other studies of social inequality in health in the U.K. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.