Results of studies examining associations between intergenerational social mobility and leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) in adulthood: arranged by country
| Study name, country | How results were presented* | Results: prevalence/model estimates* | Adjustment for covariates |
|---|---|---|---|
| MRC National Survey of Health and Development, UK23 | Prevalence (%) of LTPA (sports and leisure latent class) by occupational and educational mobility. | Occupation: ♂: M/M=24.9, M/NM=35.2, NM/M=27.7, NM/NM=41.5. ♀: M/M=26.5, M/NM=37.9, NM/M=40.0, NM/NM=48.4. Education: ♂: low/low =26.6, low/high =35.1, high/low =34.1, high/high =41.8. ♀: low/low =30.3, low/high =46.2, high/low =37.2, high/high =58.3 (p<0.001 (likelihood ratio test) for both occupation and education and both men and women). | None |
| British Regional Heart Study, UK24 25 | Prevalence (%) of LTPA by occupational mobility. | Physically active: M/M=34, M/NM=46, NM/M=35, NM/NM=51 (p<0.05) (Wannamethee et al 1996). Physically inactive: M/M=34, M/NM=29, NM/M=32, NM/NM=29 (Ramsay et al 2009). | None |
| British Women's Heart and Health Study, UK26 27 | ORs of low LTPA by occupational mobility. | ORs of <2 hours/week.: M/NM vs M/M=0.79 (0.66 to 0.94). NM/M vs NM/NM=1.47 (1.05 to 2.06). M/M vs NM/NM=1.55 (1.24 to 1.94) (Watt et al 2009). ORs of <1 hour/week: NM/NM=1.00; NM/M=1.67 (1.09 to 2.55), M/NM=1.55 (1.14 to 2.10), M/M=1.90 (1.14 to 2.54) (Lawlor et al 2004). | None |
| 2003 Scottish Health Survey, UK28 | Prevalence (%) and prevalence difference in sports by occupational mobility. | IV and V/IV and V=25.8 (19.0 to 32.6); IV and V/I and II=49.3 (41.1 to 57.6); I and II/IV and V=43.5 (33.2 to 53.8); I and II/I and II=62.8 (58.5 to 67.0). Prevalence difference when compared with those stable in SEP of origin for (1) upwardly mobile: adjusted for parental occupation =9.6 (4.0 to 15.3); adjusted for adult occupation =−6.2 (−11.2 to −1.2) and (2) downwardly mobile: adjusted for parental occupation =−11.0 (−16.5 to −5.5); adjusted for adult occupation =6.2 (0.4 to 12.0). | Age, sex (plus parents’/own adult SEP in model) |
| Mid span family Study, UK29 | Prevalence (%) of low physical activity (at work, LTPA and daily activity) by educational mobility. | ♂: M/M=16.9 (12.9 to 21.0), M/NM=27.6 (23.0 to 32.2), NM/M=12.9 (5.6 to 20.3), NM/NM=30.8 (25.1 to 36.5). ♀: M/M=20.7 (15.5 to 25.9), M/NM=32.1 (28.4 to 35.8), NM/M=16.3 (6.2 to 26.4), NM/NM=27.0 (22.4 to 31.6). | Age |
| West of Scotland Collaborative Study, UK30 31 | Mean exercise hours/week by occupational mobility. | M/M=5.7; 5.9, M/NM=6.3; 6.1, NM/M=6.2; 6.7, NM/NM=6.5; 6.4 (two estimates per group from two measures of adult occupational class: at study screening and at labour market entry) (Hart et al 1998). IV and V/IV and V=5.5, IV and V/I and II=5.5, I and II/IV and V=5.2 I and II/I and II=6.5 (Blane et al 1996). | Age |
| Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study, Finland32 | Mean (SE) low exercise score by educational mobility. | ♂: low/low =112.64 (2.72), low/high =115.87 (0.96), high/low =122.59 (5.90), high/high =113.56 (1.53). ♀: low/low =118.45 (1.87), low/high =116.76 (0.8), high/low =120.98 (4.23), high/high =114.89 (1.3) (p=0.3 for ♂ and ♀). | Age |
| Adolescent Health and Lifestyle Surveys, Finland33 | Relative risk of no LTPA for socially mobile compared with those stable in SEP of origin. | Downwardly mobile from upper white-collar workers =3.6 (2.0 to 6.4), downwardly mobile from lower white-collar workers =3.7 (2.5 to 5.4), upwardly mobile from blue-collar workers and farmers =0.3 (0.2 to 0.4), upwardly mobile from lower white-collar workers =0.8 (0.5 to 1.3). | Age, sex |
| The Study of Men Born in 1913, Sweden34 | Prevalence of low exercise in three occupational mobility groups (text only). | ‘The percentage of men who had low exercise levels at the age of 60 was significantly higher among those who had socially moved downwards’ (p (correlation) =0.002) (results for other trajectories not reported). | None |
| The Johns Hopkins Precursors Study, USA35 | Prevalence (%) of physical training in male physicians by father's occupational class. | High/high (father with high SEP): none =49.6, little =31.8, moderate/much =18.6. Low/high (father with low SEP): none =50.6, little =31.2, moderate/much =18.2. | None |
| Women Physician Health Study, USA36 | Prevalence (%) of regular exercise in female physicians by education of parents. | Mother: < high school =49, high school =50, some college =48, college graduate =48, graduate school =52, medical school =45. Father: < high school =48, high school =48, some college =52, college graduate =49, graduate school =50, medical school =50. Both parents: ≤ high school =48, mix =49, ≥ high school =53. | None |
| Childhood Determinants of Adult Health Study, Australia37 38 | Prevalence (%) and change in LTPA by educational mobility. | LTPA at 26–36 years (%): ♂: low/low =31, low/high =36, high/low =47, high/high =50. ♀: low/low =18, low/high =32, high/low =24, high/high =33 (p<0.01 for ♂ and ♀) (Gall et al 2010). Relative risk of increasing LTPA from 9–15 to 26–36 years (versus always inactive): ♂: low/low =1.00, low/high =1.49 (1.06 to 2.09), high/low =1.13 (0.76 to 1.69), high/high =1.58 (1.08 to 2.29). ♀: low/low =1.00, low/high =1.38 (1.04 to 1.83), high/low =1.10 (0.79 to 1.54), high/high =1.17 (0.84 to 1.62) (Cleland et al 2009). | None (%) Age (model) |
| Pelotas Birth Cohort 1982, Brazil39 | Prevalence ratio of low LTPA by income mobility. | ♂: non-poor/non-poor =1.00, non-poor/poor =1.32 (1.19 to 1.47), poor/non-poor =1.07 (0.94 to 1.22), poor/poor =1.19 (1.05 to 1.35). ♀: non-poor/non-poor =1.00, non-poor/poor =1.14 (1.08 to 1.20), poor/non-poor =1.06 (0.99 to 1.13), poor/poor =1.18 (1.12 to 1.24), (p<0.001 for ♂ and ♀). | Skin colour |
Social mobility is based on change in SEP between parents and adult offspring, that is, intergenerational social mobility.
*For brevity, studies presenting multiple results were not exhaustively extracted to the table. 95% CIs presented unless specified otherwise.
M, manual; NM, non-manual; SEP, socioeconomic position.