Table 2.
-1st author (year) | How results presented and interpretationb | Correlations coefficient/difference in prevalencec | Estimates from statistical modellingc | Adjustmentsd |
---|---|---|---|---|
-Country; study name | ||||
-Sample sizea; age | ||||
-Johnson (2011) [20] | Correlation and regression coefficients for a 6-point LTPA score and parental occupation (RGSC 1951: I, II, IIIN, IIIM, IV, V) (per unit change from high to low occupational class in regression model). | r = −0.06 (+, p = 0.05) | None | |
-UK; Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 | β = −0.01 (ns) | Education, own occupational class, other childhood SEP, IQ & more | ||
-1091; 70+ Yrs. | ||||
-Lawlor (2004) [21] | Prevalence of physical inactivity in six parental occupational groups (RGSC 1980: I, II, IIIN, IIIM, IV, V) and odds of physical inactivity per unit increase from high to low occupational class. | I-IV = −11.4 % {−13.6; −6.4} (+) | None | |
-UK; British Women’s Heart & Health Study (BWHHS) | ||||
-3444♀; 60–79 years. | OR = 1.17 {1.08; 1.26} (+) | Age | ||
OR = 1.15 {1.06; 1.25} (+) | Age, own occupational class | |||
-Hillsdon (2008) [22] | Prevalence of manual parental occupational class (RGSC 1980) in four groups of physical activity hours/week. | % manual occupations: | None | |
-UK; BWHHS | ≥3–0 h/week. = −7.4 % | |||
-4103♀; 60–79 years. | {−6.1; −8.6} (+, p < 0.001) | |||
-Watt (2009) [23] | Percentage difference in low exercise between manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations (RGSC 1980). | NM-M = −6.7 % {−2.5; −10.9} (+, p < 0.01) | None | |
-UK; BWHHS | ||||
-3523♀; 60–79 years. | ||||
-Ramsay (2009) [24] | Prevalence of physical inactivity in manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations (RGSC 1980). | NM-M = −48 % (+, p = 0.05) | None | |
-UK; British Regional Heart Study (BRHS) | ||||
-5188♂; 52–73 years. | ||||
-Wannamethee (1996) [25] | Prevalence of physical activity in manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations (RGSC 1980). | NM-M = 8 % (+, p < 0.0001) | None | |
-UK; BRHS | NM-M = 2.4 % (ns) | Age, own occupational class | ||
-5516♂; 40–59 years. | ||||
-Stringhini (2013) [26] | Odds of physical inactivity in the lowest compared to the highest tertile of parental occupation (RGSC 1980). | OR = 1.37 {1.14; 1.65} (+, p < 0.05) | Age, sex, ethnicity, CHD, stroke, cancer, hypertension, family history of diabetes | |
-UK; Whitehall II (WHII) Study | ||||
-6387; 40–59 years. | ||||
-Heraclides (2008) [27] | Prevalence of physical inactivity in manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations (RGSC 1980). | NM-M: | None | |
-UK; WHII Study | ♂ = 1.9 % (ns) | |||
-4598; 44–69 years. | ♀ = 1.3 % (ns) | |||
sd | ||||
-Brunner (1999) [28] | Prevalence of physical inactivity in four parental occupational groups (RGSC 1980: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V). | I-IV (♂) = −4.8 % (+, p = 0.01) | Age | |
-UK; WHII Study | I-IV (♀) = −7.9 % (+, p = 0.02) | |||
-6980; 35–55 years. | I-IV (♂) = −2.6 % (ns) | Age, own occupational class | ||
I-IV (♀) = −2.9 % (ns) | ||||
-Blane (1996) [29] | Prevalence and regression coefficients for mean exercise hours/week. by four parental occupational groups (RGSC 1966: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V). | I/II-IV/V = 0.7 h/week. {SE: I/II =0.13; IV/V =0.16} | Age | |
-UK; West of Scotland Collaborative Study | ||||
-5646♂; 35–64 years. | β = −0.16 {−0.32; 0.01} (ns) | Age | ||
-Hart (1998) [30] | Prevalence of exercise hours/week. in four groups of parental and own occupations (RGSC 1966: 1. stable non-manual 2. moved up 3. moved down 4. stable manual). | 1–4 = 0.5 h/week. (+, p = 0.002) | Age | |
-UK; West of Scotland Collaborative Study | ||||
-5567♂; 35–64 years. | ||||
-Popham (2010) [31] | Prevalence of sport & exercise in four parental occupational groups (RGSC: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V). | I/II-IV/V = 18.6 % {17.7; 19.6} (+) | Age, sex | |
-UK; 2003 Scottish Health Survey | ||||
-2770; 35–54 years. | ||||
-Hart (2008) [32] | Prevalence of no exercise in manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations (RGSC 1966) and odds of no exercise per unit increase (1–6) from low to high parental occupational class. | NM-M: | None | |
-UK; Mid span Family Study | ♂ = 3.7 % (ns) | |||
-2338; 30–59 years. | ♀ = −3.0 % (ns) | |||
Odds Ratios: | Age | |||
♂ = 1.03 (0.91; 1.16) (ns) | ||||
♀ = 1.09 (0.98; 1.21) (ns) | ||||
-Silverwood (2012) [33] | Prevalence of LTPA (low; gardening; sport & leisure), walking and cycling during work & for pleasure (high, low) in four parental occupational groups (RGSC 1970: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V). | I/II-IV/V: LTPA (sports & leisure): | None | |
-UK; MRC National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD) | ♂ = 12.2 % (+, p < 0.001) | |||
♀ = 17.9 % (+, p < 0.001) | ||||
-> 3300; 31–53 years. | I/II-IV/V: Walking (high): | |||
♂ = −17.6 % (−, p < 0.001) | ||||
♀ = −6.6 % (−, p = 0.002) | ||||
-Kuh & Cooper (1992) [34] | Prevalence of most active in sports & recreational activities in four parental occupational groups (RGSC 1970: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V). | I/II-IV/V: | None | |
-UK; MRC NSHD | ♂ = 9.1 % (ns) | |||
-2977; 36 years. | ♀ = 21.4 % (+, p < 0.001) | |||
-Pinto Pereira (2014) [35] | Odds of low LTPA per unit increase from high to low parental occupational class (RGSC 1951: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V). | Odds Ratios: | None | |
-UK; National Child Development Study 1958 (NCDS) | Age 33 = 1.12 {1.07; 1.16} (+) | |||
-12,776 had ≥ one measure of LTPA; 33, 42, 50 year. | Age 42 = 1.16 {1.11; 1.20} (+) | |||
Age 50 = 1.23 {1.17; 1.29} (+) | ||||
Age 33 = 1.06 {1.01; 1.11} (+) | Sex | |||
Age 42 = 1.10 {1.05; 1.15} (+) | ||||
Age 50 = 1.13 {1.07; 1.19} (+) | ||||
Age 33 = 1.01 {0.97; 1.06} (ns) | Sex, parental education, aptitude, household amenities, cognition, lifestyle factors age 16, & more | |||
Age 42 = 1.05 {1.002; 1.10} (+) | ||||
Age 50 = 1.09 {1.03; 1.15} (+) | ||||
Age 33 = 1.00 (0.95; 1.05) (ns) | As above plus own education, own social class, BMI, mental health, number of children in the household, limiting illness | |||
Age 42 = 1.04 (0.99; 1.09) (ns) | ||||
Age 50 = 1.07 (1.01; 1.13) (+) | ||||
-Cheng & Furnham (2013) [36] | Correlation between an exercise score (1–6) and parental occupation (RGSC 1951: I, II, IIINM, IIIM, IV, V) with higher scores for higher occupational classes. | r = −0.020 (ns) | None | |
-UK; (NCDS) | ||||
-5921; 50 year. | ||||
-Juneau (2014) [37] | Correlation between LTPA (0–224 with 23 unique values) and parental occupation (RGSC: I, II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V) with higher scores for lower occupational classes. | Age 0 | None | |
-UK; 1970 British Cohort Study | ♂: r = −0.080 (+, p < 0.001) | |||
-9624; 34 years. | ♀: r = −0.053 (+, p < 0.001) | |||
Age 5 | ||||
♂: r = −0.048 (+, p < 0.001) | ||||
♀: r = −0.077 (+, p < 0.001) | ||||
Age 10 | ||||
♂: r = −0.086 (+, p < 0.001) | ||||
♀: r = −0.064 (+, p < 0.001) | ||||
Parameter estimates from structural equation model (zero-inflated Poisson models) for LTPA by parental occupation at birth and ages 5 and 10. | Parental occupation at birth: | Occupational physical activity, transport-related physical activity | ||
Logistic portion of model: | ||||
♂ = 0.054 (ns) | ||||
(Results presented from an accumulation of risk with additive effects model (best fit), for results for ages 5 and 10 see paper. | ♀ = 0.88 (p < 0.05) | |||
Counts portion of model: | ||||
♂ = −0.049 (p < 0.05) | ||||
♀ = 0.050 (p < 0.05) | ||||
-Osler (2008) [38] | Odds of sedentary leisure activity in low compared to high parental occupational class. | OR = 1.10 {0.97; 1.26} | Age | |
-Denmark; 1953 Metropolit Birth Cohort | OR = 0.90 {0.78; 1.05} | Age, own education, own occupational class, divorce, cognition | ||
-6292♂; 51 year. | ||||
-Jørgensen (2013) [41] | Prevalence of low LTPA in five parental occupational groups (1. higher professional 2. lower professional/non-routine M 3. self-employed 4. skilled blue-collar 5. unskilled blue-collar) | 1–5: | None | |
-Denmark; Danish Health Care Worker Cohort | ♀ = −5.7 % (+, p = 0.011) | |||
-1661♀; 35.4 years (mean) | ||||
-Barnekow-Bergkvist (1998) [42] | Regression coefficients for LTPA MET hours/week. comparing non-manual to manual parental occupations. | β: | Own education, sport club member, two-hand lift, attitudes to soccer & handball | |
-Sweden | ♂ = reported as ns | |||
♀ = 0.18 (+) | ||||
-278; 34 years. | ||||
-Tammelin (2003) [43] | Odds of physical inactivity in parental occupational groups (1. skilled professional 2. skilled worker 3. unskilled worker 4. farmer) with skilled professional used as reference category. | Odds Ratios (4 vs. 1): | After-school sports | |
-Finland; 1966 North Finland Birth Cohort | ♂ = 1.18 {0.94; 1.49} (ns) | |||
-7794; 31 year. | ♀ = 0.80 {0.63; 1.02} (ns) | |||
-Makinen (2009) [44] | Odds of inactivity and moderate LTPA relative to high LTPA in father’s occupational groups (office employee, manual worker, self-employed, farmer) with office employee used a reference category. | ORs (farmer vs. office employee): | Age | |
-Finland; Health 2000 Survey | Inactivity (♂) = 1.69 (+) | |||
-6262; 30+ Yrs. | Inactivity (♀) = 0.97 (ns) | |||
Moderate LTPA (♂) = 1.68 (ns) | ||||
Moderate LTPA (♀) = 1.08 (ns) | ||||
-3905; 30+ Yrs. | Odds of inactivity and moderate LTPA relative to high LTPA in mother’s occupational groups (office employee, manual worker, self-employed, farmer) with office employee used a reference category. | ORs (farmer vs. office employee): | Age | |
Inactivity (♂) = 1.49 (ns) | ||||
Inactivity (♀) = 0.87 (ns) | ||||
Moderate LTPA (♂) = 1.99 (ns) | ||||
Moderate LTPA (♀) = 1.40 (+) | ||||
-Wichstrøm (2013) [45] | LTPA in five parental occupational groups (leader, high professional, low professional, manual, farmer/fisherman). | Reported as ‘unrelated to LTPA at any time point’ (ns) | None | |
-Norway | ||||
-> 2800; 25–32 years | ||||
-Peck (1994) [48] | Risk of no regular physical activity compared to the sample average in seven parental occupational groups (self-employed with employees, self-employed w/o employees, higher non-manual, assistant non-manual, skilled manual, unskilled manual, farmers). | Unskilled manual: | None | |
-Sweden | ♂ = 1.24 (ns) | |||
-13,695; 16–74 years. | ♀ = 1.24 (ns) | |||
Higher non-manual: | ||||
♂ = 0.73 (ns) | ||||
♀ = 0.73 (ns) | ||||
-Beunen (2004) [50] | Correlation and regression coefficients for sport, leisure-time and counts indices by parental occupation. Only leisure-time presented in paper. | Leisure-time: | Leisure-time: | Skeletal maturity, sum of skinfolds |
-Belgium; Leuven Longitudinal Study of Flemish Boys | r = 0.13 (ns) | β at 16 years = 0.17 (+) | ||
-166♂; 40 year. | β at 18 years = 0.16 (+) | |||
-Kamphuis (2013) [52] | Prevalence of inactive, little and moderately active in three parental occupational groups (1. professional 2. white collar 3. blue collar). | 1–3: | None | |
-Netherlands; GLOBE Study | Inactive = 1.5 % (ns) | |||
-4894♂; 40–75 years. | Little active = −0.9 % (ns) | |||
Moderately active = 2 % (ns) | ||||
-van de Mheen (1998) [53] | Odds of no LTPA and frequent LTPA by parental occupation (1. higher grade professional 2. lower grade professional/routine NM 3. self-employed 4. high/low skilled M 5. unskilled M) with higher grade professional used a reference category. | Odds Ratios (5 vs. 1): | Age, sex, religion, marriage, urbanisation | |
-Netherlands; Longitudinal Study on Socio-Economic Health Differences | No LTPA = 1.82 (+) | |||
Frequent LTPA = 0.59 (+) | ||||
-13,854; 25–74 years. | ||||
No LTPA = 1.62 (ns) | As above plus own occupational class | |||
Frequent LTPA = 0.68 (+ in ♀ only) | ||||
-Regidor (2004) [49] | Prevalence and odds of physical inactivity in four parental occupational groups (1. professional, manager, proprietor, clerical worker 2. self-employed farmer 3. skilled/unskilled manual worker 4. paid farm worker) with professional group used as reference category. | 1–4 (♂) = −9.5 % (+, p = 0.043) | None | |
-Spain | 1–4 (♀) = −7.9 % (+, p = 0.011) | |||
-3658; 60+ Yrs. | ||||
Prevalence Ratios (4 vs. 1): | Age | |||
♂ = 1.29 {1.07; 1.56} (+, ns: 3 vs. 1) | ||||
♀ = 1.17 {1.03; 1.32} (+, ns: 2 vs. 1) | ||||
♂ = 1.28 (1.05; 1.55) (+, ns: 3 vs. 1) | Age, own occupational class | |||
♀ = 1.15 (1.01; 1.31) (+, ns: 2vs. 1) | ||||
Odds of physical inactivity in manual compared to non-manual parental occupations. | Manual vs. Non-manual: | Age | ||
♂ = 1.04 (0.91; 1.18) (ns) | ||||
♀ = 1.14 (1.05; 1.24) (+) | ||||
♂ = 1.03 {0.90; 1.17} (ns) | Age, own occupational class | |||
♀ = 1.12 {1.03; 1.23} (+) | ||||
-Bowen (2010) [56] | Prevalence of vigorous exercise in manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations. | NM-M = 6 % (+, p < 0.001) | None | |
-US; Health & Retirement Study, Study of Asset & Health Dynamics, & two other cohorts | ||||
-18,465; 51+ Yrs. |
aBoth men and women included in analysis unless otherwise stated, N ♂ analytic sample consists of men only, N ♀ analytic sample consists of women only
b LTPA leisure-time physical activity, MET metabolic equivalent, RGSC Registrar General’s Social Classification (I: professional, II: managerial and technical, IIIN: skilled non-manual, IIIM: skilled manual, IV: partly skilled, V: unskilled), M manual, NM non-manual
cFor brevity, prevalence of LTPA shown as crude difference between named childhood SEP groups, along with measure of precision (95 % confidence intervals where available unless stated otherwise), SE standard errors, r correlation coefficient, OR odds ratio from logistic regression, β: regression coefficient, “+” Statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) association between less advantaged childhood SEP and less frequent adult LTPA, “−” Statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) association between less advantaged childhood SEP and more frequent adult LTPA, ns Statistically non-significant association (p > 0.05) between childhood SEP and adult LTPA
d BMI body mass index, CVD cardiovascular disease, CHD coronary heart disease