P o P u l a t i o n a n d d e v e l o P m e n t R e v i e w 3 9 ( 1 ) : 1 3 1 -1 5 7 ( m a R C H 2 0 1 3 ) 1 3 1 N o t e s a N d C o m m e N ta ry

BackgroundCognitive development in childhood is negatively affected by socioeconomic disadvantage. This study examined whether differences in fetal environment might mediate the association between family socioeconomic position and child development.MethodsData were linked from the Scottish Longitudinal Study, maternity inpatient records and the Child Health Surveillance Programme – Pre School for 32,238 children. The outcome variables were based on health visitor assessment of gross motor, hearing and language, vision and fine motor, and social development. Socioeconomic position was measured using parental social class and highest qualification attained. Random-effects logistic regression models were estimated to account for multiple reviews and familial clustering. Mediation analysis was conducted using the Karlson-Holm-Breen method.ResultsHearing and language, vision and fine motor, and social development were associated with lower parental social class and lower parental educational qualifications after adjustment for fetal environment. Fetal environment partially mediated the estimated effect of having parents without educational qualifications for hearing and language (β = 0·15; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0·07, 0·23), vision and fine motor (β = 0·19; CI = 0·10, 0·28) and social development (β = 0·14; CI = 0·03 to 0·25).ConclusionsSocioeconomic position predicted hearing and language, vision and fine motor, and social development but not gross motor development. For children of parents without educational qualifications, fetal environment appears to contribute to a part of the socioeconomic gradient in child development abnormalities but post-natal environment appears to still explain the majority of the gradient and for other children most of it.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12939-017-0698-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundActual or perceived status, such as housing tenure, may impact on health through stress-inducing social comparisons. Studies of how status change impacts mental health change are rare but important because they are less prone to confounding.MethodsWe used data from the British Household Panel Survey to compare psychological distress in local authority renters who opted to buy their home under the UK's Right to Buy (RTB) policy versus those who continued to rent the same (social non-mover (SNM)) or a different (social mover (SM)) local authority property or who bought privately (owner mover (OM)). General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) scores before and after any change in tenure and/or address were compared across groups using a difference-in-difference approach.ResultsIndividuals who moved house (bought or rented) were younger while those who bought (the same or different house) were better off, more likely to be employed, and had higher educational qualifications. Individuals who bought their home (under RTB or privately) had lower distress scores from the outset. Individuals who moved house (bought or rented) experienced a rise in distress prior to moving that was no longer evident 1 year after the move. There was no evidence that changing tenure reduced psychological distress comparing (difference (95% CI)) average GHQ score 2 years preaddress and 1 year postaddress/tenure change in RTB vs SNM, SM, OM: −0.08 (−0.68 to 0.51), 0.16 (−0.70 to 1.01) and −0.17 (−1.28 to 0.94), respectively).ConclusionsChanging tenure under RTB did not, on average, impact psychological distress, suggesting that this status change did not change mental health.

Part of the political argument in favour of the right to buy (RTB) was that it would stimulate the economy by encouraging the inter-regional mobility of those in public sector housing. This is the first study to examine whether RTB-owners are indeed more mobile than those in social housing. Using longitudinal data from the British household panel survey and panel regression models we show that the probability of a RTB-owner making a long distance move falls between that of social renters and owner occupiers. However, the difference between RTB-owners and homeowners or social renters is not significant. Social renters are significantly less likely to move over long distances than traditional owners. The results also suggest that RTB-owners are less likely than traditional owners to move for job related reasons, but more likely than social renters.

Socioeconomically disadvantaged children are more likely to be of shorter stature and overweight, leading to greater risk of obesity in adulthood. Disentangling the mediatory pathways between socioeconomic disadvantage and childhood size may help in the development of appropriate policies aimed at reducing these health inequalities. We aimed to elucidate the putative mediatory role of birth weight using a representative sample of the Scottish population born 1991–2001 (n = 16,628). Estimated height and overweight/obesity at age 4.5 years were related to three measures of socioeconomic disadvantage (mother’s education, Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation, synthetic weekly income). Mediation was examined using two approaches: a ‘traditional’ mediation analysis and a counterfactual-based mediation analysis. Both analyses identified a negative effect of each measure of socioeconomic disadvantage on height, mediated to some extent by birth weight, and a positive ‘direct effect’ of mother’s education and Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation on overweight/obesity, which was partly counterbalanced by a negative ‘indirect effect’. The extent of mediation estimated when adopting the traditional approach was greater than when adopting the counterfactual-based approach because of inappropriate handling of intermediate confounding in the former. Our findings suggest that higher birth weight in more disadvantaged groups is associated with reduced social inequalities in height but also with increased inequalities in overweight/obesity.