Table 1

Cohort and case-control studies examining the relation of child labour with growth

Author/year	Study design	Setting	Exposure	Outcome	Control for SES and parental height	Conclusion
Japanese study reported in Shah 1984²	Case-control	Japan	Children starting work at 14 v those starting work at 18	Height	No attempt to adjust for SES or parental height	4 cm difference in height between cases and controls
Satyanarayana et al 1985³	Cohort (17 year follow up)	Hyderabad, India	Child farmers in families; waged farm workers; non-farm workers; students	Height and weight	No attempt to adjust for SES or parental heightt	Height and weight lower in workers compared with students; deficit in height and weight greater in waged than children working in family.
Singh et al 1980⁵	Case-control	Bombay, India	Working v non-working children in slums	Height	No attempt to adjust for SES or parental height	Height of working children lower than non-working controls; children starting to work before 9 years more stunted than those starting at age 11.
Gross et al 1996⁶	Case-control	Jakarta, Indonesia	Working street children v non-working slum children	Height for age; weight for age; weight for height	No attempt to adjust for SES or parental height	52% of street children <3rd centile for height by NCHS reference standards; 7% <3rd centile for weight. Height and weight of street children > slum children
Joshi and Sharma 1996⁴	Case-control	Jaipur City, India	110 working children v 290 school children matched for age and area	Height; weight	No adjustment for SES or parental height	Height and weight controlled by age < in working children except among 6–8 year olds in whom no difference noted
Lee¹⁸	Case-control	Republic of Korea	593 female factory workers <18 years v 109 girls applying for work	Height; weight	No attempt to adjust for SES or parental height	Working girls taller and heavier than controls
Mahathevan⁷	Case-control	Malaysia	210 working children (7–15 y) v 210 age, sex, ethnic group and SES matched school children	Weight	No adjustment for parental height	48% of working children “underweight” but no figures given for controls
Sampa 1993⁸	Case-control	Calcutta, India	40 boys (7–14 y) working in leather workshops v 40 age, area and SES matched controls	Height; weight	No adjustment for parental height	No height or weight differences between cases and controls
De La Pas 1990⁹	Case-control	Philippines	113 working v 109 non-working boys matched for age and area	Height; weight; sitting height	Adjustment for SES but not for parental height	Height and weight differences between cases and controls disappeared on adjustment for SES; working hours and number of working days not correlated with growth parameters measured
Ambadekar et al 1999¹⁰	Case-control	Maharashtra, India	223 working children (8–15 y) v 223 age and gender matched non-working controls	Height; weight; BMI	No adjustment for SES or parental height	Mean height and weight of working boys increased less than non-working boys—for weight slowdown occurred in working boys after 12 years and after 14 yrs for ht. Girls showed no significant differences. BMI decreased with increasing duration of employment.