Overview Of The Relationship Between Socio-economic-status (ses) And Health

Socio-economic-status, SES for short is the social position one obtains within a societal hierarchy; one would also describe it as being the economical and sociological construction of an individuals experience with work. In the same way, it’s also about their inherited social and economic position. This is based on income, education and occupation. Blaxter points out that it seems there is more emphasis on single responsibility. For example, one could treat their bodies badly by drinking and smoking alcohol instead of exercising and maintaining an active lifestyle.

Health can be defined in many ways. Health can be defined as the absence of sickness or harm to the body or mind, or the state in which one is. This assignment will also discuss the lessons that can be drawn from the research on health over the lifespan of an individual. Referring to the nature of the correlation between socio-economic-status and health; also the apparent causes of this relationship. Also, the various theories, methods and concepts in psychology will be explored. The studies would include Case et al (2005), Cohen (2004) and Bartley (2017).

The nature of the relationship between socio-economic-status and health could be learnt from Case et al (2005) and his research associated with the 1958 national Child development study. The children included in this study were those born during the third week of March 1958. Children were monitored at the age of 7, 11, 16, 23, 30, 33, 42, and 44. Case found that seven-year-old children had low birth weights and chronic illnesses. Then he predicted their educational achievements at the age of 16. Case used the numerical value of chronic health conditions to predict adult occupational classes at ages thirty-three and forty-two. Moreover Case looked at the aftermath of parental socio-economic-status in childhood and adult health; more precisely the mother’s and father’s education and occupation at the time of their Childs birth; Case then further predicting that child’s adult health when turning forty two.

Cohen et.al. (2004) studied the individual’s vulnerability to a common cold. Cohen’s study involved injecting a cold-virus through the nose of 334 participants. The effect was independent of BMI, education, home ownership, and parental education. The results of his study showed that 61 people (45%) with a cold had parents with home ownership between 0 and 6 years. 59 participants, or 37% of those who were infected with colds, had parents owning a property for 7-17years. And finally 31% (78 participants) had parents owned by 18-years.

There is appended evidence for both: effects of health on ones socio-economic-status and the effect of ones socio-economic-status on their health. It is not easy to differentiate between the causes and the effects. Weightman et.al., (2012) in the UK examined employment class and how it affected low birthweight. The odds ratio compared to the lowest SES and highest was 80%. Larson (2009) used income to determine the link between obesity and weight. There was the odds ratio of 80% more likely when distinguished with the highest and lowest socio-economic-status. Larson Halfon studied the correlation between income, severe asthma, and mild asthma. Where the odds ratio was 350% more likely when compared with lowest and highest socio-economic-status. These studies reveal a correlation between health risks, such as obesity, low birthweight, and income. However, it is impossible to determine the exact cause of the health risk.

Similarly Attar, Guerra and Tolan’s (1994) research focuses on socio-economic-status and early life stress. The study included 384 US kids aged six to ten who lived in deprive neighbourhoods. The researchers found that neighbourhood deprivation was correlated to the greater risk of stress situations.

Lantz et al. (2005) carried out a study on 3,500 US citizens, measuring: income and educational level, self-reported types of stress and negative events in life as well mortality. He takes stress into consideration, as well as negative life events. This also explains the 35-45 percent correlation between income and death.

Liu et al. (2000) also examined 4000 Taiwanese participants. He assessed their educational level, emotional support and social participation. Like Lantz. Liu discovered that psychosocial variables explained 26% the effect of SES in mortality whereas only 9% could be attributed to health behaviors.

Cutler & Lleras Muney’s study can help explain how childhood events can impact adult health. In addition, they found that 90% of all countries with high education levels have health-related behaviours. On the contrary Cutler and Lleras-Muney’s research doesn’t seem to explain any sort of difference in health behaviours across socio-economic-status.

Bartley (2017) also found that childhood experiences continue to affect the physical and mental health of adults decades after they were born. He explains the importance of critical and vulnerable periods, accumulations in disadvantages and pathway models.

Nobel and colleagues (2012) also examine the relationship between stress, socio-emotional adjustment, and developmental outcomes. The study implies how there is a relation between neural stimuli of socio-economic-status in the developing brain. The study involved 60 participants. They were all children and teenagers from the United States. Nobel examined structural brain scannings. She concluded that a lower socio-economic-status meant that there was a lower hippocampal volume and higher amygdala volume.

To conclude one may argue that what can be learnt from the studies of health across the life span regarding the nature of the relationship between socio-economic-status and health as well as the possible causes of this relationship is that the correlation between ones educational growth, deprivation or parental occupational class is evedent towards ones health may it be low birth weight, eating habits, viruses et cetera. However there isn’t a clear indication as to whether ones health is the cause of a low socio-economic-status or that a low socio-economic-status is the cause of bad health.