Table 1.

summary of articles included in the systematic review categorized by life course model

First author, year, reference Country	Study design N	Quality Rating	Gender	Measures of SEP	Model	Outcomes	Results
Mäkinen 2006 [32] Finland	Repeat cross-sectional N = 8970	Average	20% male	Childhood SEP: parent’s education level & childhood circumstances. Adulthood SEP: own education level	A	SF-36 MCS	No support.
Otero-Rodríguez 2010 [40] Spain	Cohort N = 2117	Average	45% male	Childhood SEP: father’s occupation. Own education level. Adulthood SEP: current/last occupation of household head	A	Change in SF-36 MCS	Support for accumulation model – risk of decline in MCS increased linearly with increasing number of low SEPs.
Singh-Manoux 2004 [6] United Kingdom	Cohort N = 6128	Average	72% male	Childhood SEP: father’s occupation & childhood socioeconomic circumstances. Own education level. Adulthood SEP: employment grade	A	SF-36 MCS	Support for accumulation model among men only – risk of being in lowest quintile increased linearly with increasing number of low SEPs.
Huurre 2003 [41] Finland	Cohort N = 1592	Higher	45% male	Childhood SEP: father's occupation. Adulthood SEP: own occupation	L	Wellbeing	Support for latent model among women only – lower childhood SEP associated with poorer wellbeing.
Marmot 1998 [38] United States	Cross-sectional N = 3032	Average	48% male	Childhood SEP: parent’s education level. Adulthood SEP: own education level	L	Wellbeing	Some support for latent model among women who had mothers with lowest education – lower childhood SEP associated with poorer wellbeing.
Otero-Rodríguez 2010 [40] Spain	Cohort N = 2117	Average	45% male	Childhood SEP: father’s occupation. Own education level. Adulthood SEP: current/last occupation of household head	L	Change in SF-36 MCS	Support for latent model – low childhood SEP associated with highest risk of decline and improvement in MCS.
Laaksonen 2007 [31] Finland	Repeat cross-sectional N = 8970	Average	20% male	Childhood SEP: parent’s education level. Adulthood SEP: own education level, income & occupation	L & P	SF-36 MCS	No evidence for latent model in men or women. Support for pathway model in men & women – higher adulthood SEP associated with increased risk of low MCS.
Mäkinen 2006 [32] Finland	Repeat cross-sectional N = 8970	Average	20% male	Childhood SEP: parent’s education level. Adulthood SEP: own education level	L & P	SF-36 MCS	Support for latent model in women only – higher childhood SEP associated with increased risk of low MCS. No support for pathway model in men or women.
Blane 2004 [39] United Kingdom	Cohort N = 254	Poorer	47% male	Inter-generational mobility: father’s occupation & respondent’s longest held occupation. Intra-generational mobility: respondent’s occupation aged 25 & 50 years	SM (inter & intra)	CASP-19	No support.
Otero-Rodríguez 2010 [40] Spain	Cohort N = 2117	Average	45% male	Inter-generational mobility: father’s occupation & current or last occupation of household head	SM (inter)	Change in SF-36 MCS	Support for social mobility – upwardly mobile more likely to experience change in MCS scores. No evidence for downwardly mobile.
Runyan 1980 [37] United States	Cohort N = 91	Poorer	49% male	Inter-generational mobility: father’s occupation & respondent’s occupation aged around 38 years	SM (inter)	Life satisfaction	No support.
Breeze 2001 [35] United Kingdom	Cohort N = 7041	Average	100% male	Intra-generational mobility: employment grade at baseline & employment grade at retirement	SM (intra)	SF-36 MCS	Support for intra-generational effect – upwardly mobile less likely to have poor MCS score.
Houle 2011 [42] United States	Cohort N = 4992	Higher	100% male	Intra-generational mobility: occupation aged around 36 years & 52 years	SM (intra)	Wellbeing	No support intra-generational effect – mobile individuals more likely to report wellbeing resembling current class than prior class.
Huang and Sverke 2007 [33] Sweden	Cohort N = 291	Average	100% female	Intra-generational mobility: respondent’s occupational history from ages 16 to 43 years	SM (intra)	Life satisfaction	No support.
Johansson 2007 [34] Sweden	Cohort N = 514	Average	100% female	Intra-generational mobility: respondent’s occupational history from ages 16 to 43	SM (intra)	Life satisfaction & wellbeing	Life satisfaction: no support. Wellbeing: some support – downwardly mobile reported lower wellbeing.

A = accumulation; Inter = inter-generational; Intra = Intra-generational; L = latent; MCS = mental component summary; N = Sample size; P = pathway; SEP = socio-economic position; SF-36 = short-form 36; SM = social mobility.