QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH

Quantitative Research in Public Health

Quantitative Research

The purpose of this paper is to write a short critique of “Socio-economic status and health in a marginalized group: the role of subjective social status among prison inmates” by Friestad. This article was published in 2010 in European Journal of Public Health.

The research objectives

The objective of this article was to examine, among marginalized groups, if subjective socioeconomic status (SES) predicts health status and change in health status over time better than objective SES. (Kawachi 1999)

As subjective SES encompasses a wide range of socioeconomic phenomena, it is not surprising that recent studies have shown it to be a good predictor of health. However, it remains unclear if subjective status is a better predictor of health when compared with a comprehensive measure of objective SES. Individual measures of SES are likely to capture only one aspect of the relationship between socioeconomic circumstances and health. Consequently, a valid comparison of the relationship between health and subjective and objective measures of SES can only be made if the latter is also a global, composite measure of SES. (Wilkinson 1992)

The methods used to answer the research questions

Data for the current analyses come from the study. The target population for the study was all London-based office staff, aged 35 to 55, working in 20 Civil Service departments. With a response rate of 73%, the final cohort consisted of 10,308 participants (6895 men and 3413 women) at the first phase of data collection between 1985 and 1988. Although mostly white collar, respondents covered a wide range of employment grades, from office support to permanent secretary, with salaries in 1995 from £4995 to £150,000. (Jackman 1979)

The screening at baseline (Phase 1) involved a clinical examination and a self-administered questionnaire containing sections on demographic characteristics, health, lifestyle factors, work characteristics, social support, and life events. Since baseline screening, five further data-collection rounds have been completed. Successive phases alternate between collecting data by self-administered questionnaire only and collecting data via a clinical screening in addition to questionnaire completion. Data on measures of SES are from Phase 5 (1997-1999), when the measure of subjective social status was introduced to the study, and that on health outcomes are from Phases 5 and 6 (2000-2001). The mean follow-up period between Phases 5 and 6 was 3 years. (Singh 2003)

Objective SES was assessed via civil service employment grade in the study. All participants were asked to give their current or last known civil service grade title. The civil service identifies 12 nonindustrial grade levels, which have been regrouped to form 6 employment grades overall. Grade 1 reflects high SES; grade 6, low SES. People in different grades differ with respect to salary, social status, and level of responsibility. The annual full-time salaries in 1995 ranged from £4995 to £150,000. (Webster 1978)

A self-anchoring scale in the form of a 10-rung ladder was introduced to the study at Phase V in order to measure subjective SES. Participants were given the drawing of a ladder with the following instructions: "Think of this ladder as representing where people stand in society. At the top of the ladder are the people who are best off—those who have the most money, most education and the best ...