Table 4.
-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 an index of childhood household amenities. | r = 0.00 (ns) | None | |
-UK; Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 | β = 0.02 (ns) | Own education, own occupational class & more | ||
-1091; 70 year. | ||||
-Hilsdon (2008) [22] | Prevalence of four indicators of childhood household amenities and car access in 4 groups of frequency of physical activity hours/week. | ≥3–0 (hours/week.): | None | |
-UK; British Women’s Heart & Health Study (BWHHS) | Shared bedroom = −7.7 % {−5.9; −8.7} (+) | |||
No indoor toilet = −8.8 % {−7.9;- 9.8} (+) | ||||
-> 4100♀; 60–79 years. | No hot water = −9.6 % {−8.6; −10.4} (+) | |||
No car access = −7.9 % {−6.8; −9.1} (+) | ||||
Odds of more frequent physical activity per unit increase in childhood SEP (parental occupation, household amenities and car access) with higher scores representing more adversity. | OR = 0.85 {0.81; 0.89} (+) | Age | ||
OR = 0.93 {0.89; 0.98} (+) | Age, adult SEP, area deprivation. | |||
OR = 0.94 {0.90; 0.99} (+) | As above plus smoking, BMI, CVD, respiratory disease | |||
-Watt (2009) [23] | Difference in prevalence of low exercise between those reporting no and those reporting yes to questions on childhood household amenities and car access. | Shared bedroom = 5.4 % {1.9; 9.0} (+) | None | |
-UK; BWHHS | No hot water = 6.1 % {2.4; 9.8} (+) | |||
-3523♀; 60–79 years. | No indoor toilet = 6.8 % {3.1; 10.4} (+) | |||
No car access = 7.9 % {3.3; 12.4} (+) | ||||
Odds of low exercise per unit increase in childhood SEP with higher scores representing more adversity. | OR = 1.12 {1.07; 1.17} (+) | None | ||
OR = 1.06 {1.01; 1.12} (+) | Age, own adult SEP | |||
-Pinto Pereira (2014) [35] | Odds of low LTPA per unit increase (0–18) on index of childhood household amenities (access to bathroom, indoor lavatory and hot water, with higher scores indicating more limited access). | Odds ratios: | None | |
-UK; National Child Development Study 1958 (NCDS) | Age 33 = 1.03 {1.01; 1.04} (+) | |||
Age 42 = 1.03 {1.01; 1.04} (+) | ||||
-12,776 had ≥ one measure of LTPA; 33, 42, 50 year. | ||||
Age 50 = 1.04 {1.03; 1.05} (+) | ||||
Age 33 = 1.02 {1.001; 1.03} (+) | Sex | |||
Age 42 = 1.01 {0.999; 1.03} (ns) | ||||
Age 50 = 1.02 {1.01; 1.04} (+) | ||||
Age 33 = 1.01 {0.995; 1.03} (ns) | Sex, parental education, household amenities, cognition, aptitude, lifestyle factors at age 16, & more | |||
Age 42 = 1.01 {0.99; 1.02} (ns) | ||||
Age 50 = 1.02 {1.002; 1.03} (+) | ||||
Age 33 = 1.01 {0.99; 1.02} (ns) | As above plus own education, own social class, BMI, mental health, number of children in the household, limiting illness | |||
Age 42 = 1.01 {0.99; 1.02} (ns) | ||||
Age 50 = 1.01 {0.999; 1.03} (ns) | ||||
-Lynch (1997) [39] | Prevalence of conditioning inactivity & low quartile of conditioning activity by an index of parental occupation, parental education & more (1. high 2. middle 3. poor). | No conditioning activity: | Age | |
-Finland; Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study | 1–3 = −0.4 % (ns) | |||
Low quartile: | ||||
-2682♂; 42–60 year. | 1–3+ = −5.7 % (+) | |||
-Makinen (2009) [44] | Odds of inactivity and moderate LTPA relative to high LTPA for those reporting yes to long-term financial problems; regular parental unemployment. | Odds Ratios (inactivity): | Age | |
-Finland; Health 2000 Survey | ♂ = 1.04 (ns); 1.35 (ns) | |||
-6492; 30+ Yrs. | ♀ = 1.18 (ns); 1.45 (ns) | |||
Odds Ratios (moderate LTPA): | ||||
♂ = 0.95 (ns); 1.31 (ns) | ||||
♀ = 1.13 (ns); 1.36 (ns) | ||||
-Beunen (2004) [50] | Correlation and regression coefficients for sport, leisure-time and counts indices per increase in urbanisation score of the childhood home. Only counts results presented in paper. | Counts: | Counts: | |
-Belgium; LLSFB | r = 0.18 (+) | β at 14 years = 0.17 (+) | Sit reach, pulse recovery, sports participation (regression) | |
-166♂; 40 year. | β at 16 years = 0.15 (+) | |||
β at 18 years = 0.15 (+) | ||||
-Scheerder (2006) [51] | Path coefficients for level of sports participation based on an index of parental occupation and parental education (lower class, middle class, upper class). | β from path model = −0.07 {−0.22; 0.08} (ns) | Age, own education, own occupational class, BMI, parent’s sport, & more | |
-Belgium; Leuven Longitudinal Study of Flemish Girls (LLSFG) | ||||
-234♀; 32–41 year. | ||||
-Pudrovska (2013) [54] | Path coefficients for exercise per change in index of parental occupation, parental education, family income, father’s occupational income and occupational education. | ‘Total effects’ | None | |
-US; 1957 Wisconsin Longitudinal Study | β = 1.117 (+, p < 0.001) | |||
-5778; 65 years. | ||||
‘Direct effects’ | Marriage, children, alcohol use, smoking status, own SES, health, obesity, depression | |||
♂ = 0.211 (+, p < 0.01) | ||||
♀ = 0.091 (+, p < 0.05) | ||||
♂ = 0.018 (ns) | As above plus high school sports | |||
♀ = 0.039 (ns) | ||||
-Carroll (2011) [57] | Correlation between physical activity kilocalories/week. and a 6-point index of household amenities and car access (for every 2 years, up to age 18). | r (range) = −0.15 to 0.14 (ns) | None | |
-US; Vaccination Immunity Project | ||||
-112; 40–60 year. | ||||
-Tsenkova (2014) [59] | Regression coefficients for more frequent vigorous exercise per increasing disadvantage on a 6-point index of parental education, childhood welfare status and financial circumstances. | β = −0.11 {SE = 0.03} (+, p < 0.01) | Age, sex, race, smoking history. | |
-US; Midlife in the US Study. | ||||
-895; 25–74 | β = −0.08 {SE = 0.03} (+, p < 0.05) | As above plus adult SEP | ||
-Kern (2010) [60] | Regression coefficients for physical activity per unit increase in standardised index of parental occupation and education. | β (Physical activity level): | None | |
-US; Terman Life Cycle Study | ♂ = −0.03 {SE = 0.02} (ns) | |||
-1114;25–61 year. | ♀ = 0.02 {SE = 0.01} (ns) | |||
-Schooling (2007) [62] | Prevalence of HEPAb, minimally active, and inactive in three groups of (3 items, 1 or 2 items, 0 parental possessions during childhood | HEPA-inactive: | None | |
-China; Guangzhou Bio-bank Cohort Study (GBCS) | ♂ (0 items) = 6.1 % (−, p < 0.01) | |||
♀ (0 items) = −3.2 % (p < 0.01) | ||||
-9748; 50+ Yrs. | ||||
-Elwell-Sutton (2011) [63] | Prevalence of HEPAb, minimally active, and inactive in those reporting 1–3 items or 0 parental possessions during childhood). | HEPA-inactive: | None | |
-China; GBCS | 0 Items = −0.17 % (ns) | |||
-20,086; 50+ Yrs. | 1–3 items = 0.61 % (ns) |
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, HEPA Health enhancing physical activity–acronym used in the two GBCS papers [62, 63]
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