Table 3.
Sensitivity of meta-analyzed associations between childhood factors and orientation to promote good in adulthood to potential unmeasured confounding.
| Variable | Predictor (level) | E-value for estimate | E-value for 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relationship with mother | (Ref: Very bad/somewhat bad) | ||
| Very good/somewhat good | 1.31 | 1.16 | |
| Relationship with father | (Ref: Very bad/somewhat bad) | ||
| Very good/somewhat good | 1.25 | 1.14 | |
| Parent marital status | (Ref: Parents married) | ||
| Divorced | 1.07 | 1.00 | |
| Single, never married | 1.19 | 1.00 | |
| One or both parents had died | 1.09 | 1.00 | |
| Financial status of family when growing up | (Ref: Got by) | ||
| Lived comfortably | 1.32 | 1.19 | |
| Found it difficult | 1.10 | 1.00 | |
| Found it very difficult | 1.16 | 1.00 | |
| Experienced abuse | (Ref: No) | ||
| Yes | 1.27 | 1.13 | |
| Felt like an outsider in the family | (Ref: No) | ||
| Yes | 1.28 | 1.20 | |
| Self-rated health when growing up | (Ref: Good) | ||
| Excellent | 1.75 | 1.52 | |
| Very good | 1.45 | 1.32 | |
| Fair | 1.28 | 1.00 | |
| Poor | 1.18 | 1.00 | |
| Immigration status | (Ref: Born in this country) | ||
| Born in another country | 1.19 | 1.00 | |
| Frequency of religious service attendance (age 12) | (Ref: Never) | ||
| At least 1/week | 1.57 | 1.44 | |
| 1–3/month | 1.40 | 1.25 | |
| < 1/month | 1.21 | 1.00 | |
| Year of birth | (Ref: 1998–2005; age 18–24) | ||
| 1993–1998; age 25–29 | 1.30 | 1.15 | |
| 1983–1993; age 30–39 | 1.34 | 1.19 | |
| 1973–1983; age 40–49 | 1.43 | 1.25 | |
| 1963–1973; age 50–59 | 1.49 | 1.28 | |
| 1953–1963; age 60–69 | 1.48 | 1.15 | |
| 1943–1953; age 70–79 | 1.58 | 1.22 | |
| 1943 or earlier; age 80 + | 1.51 | 1.00 | |
| Gender | (Ref: Male) | ||
| Female | 1.22 | 1.14 | |
| Other | 1.13 | 1.00 |
Notes: The E-value for the effect estimate is the minimum strength of association (on the risk ratio scale) that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the predictor and the outcome to entirely explain away the observed association between them, conditional on the measured covariates. The E-value for the limit of the 95% confidence interval closest to the null denotes the minimum strength of association (on the risk ratio scale) that an unmeasured confounder would need to have with both the predictor and the outcome to shift the confidence interval to include the null value, conditional on the measured covariates.