MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056104646 · doi:10.1136/jech.57.5.361

Social inequalities in depressive symptoms and physical functioning in the Whitehall II study: exploring a common cause explanation

2003· article· en· W2056104646 on OpenAlex
Stephen Stansfeld

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Epidemiology & Community Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityBritish Heart FoundationNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteMcGill UniversityHealth and Safety ExecutiveNational Institute on AgingQueen Mary University of LondonMedical Research CouncilJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
KeywordsMedicineRetinalSupravalvular aortic stenosisOphthalmologyFundus (uterus)Visual acuityElastinInternal medicinePathologyStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study investigated which risk factors might explain social inequalities in both depressive symptoms and physical functioning and whether a common set of risk factors might account for the association between depressive symptoms and physical functioning. DESIGN: A longitudinal prospective occupational cohort study of female and male civil servants relating risk factors at baseline (phase 1: 1985-8) to employment grade gradients in depressive symptoms and physical functioning at follow up (phase 5: 1997-9). Analyses include the 7270 men and women who participated at phase 5. SETTING: Whitehall II Study: 20 London based white collar civil service departments. PARTICIPANTS: Male and female civil servants, 35-55 years at baseline. MAIN RESULTS: Depressive symptoms were measured by a subscale of items from the 30 item General Health Questionnaire. Physical functioning was measured by a subscale of the SF-36. Employment grade was used as a measure of socioeconomic position as it reflects both income and status. The grade gradient in depressive symptoms was entirely explained by risk factors including work characteristics, material disadvantage, social supports, and health behaviours. These risk factors only partially explained the gradient in physical functioning. The correlation between depressive symptoms and physical functioning was reduced by adjustment for risk factors and baseline health status but not much of the association was explained by adjustment for risk factors. Among women, the association between depression and physical functioning was significantly stronger in the lower grades both before and after adjustment for risk factors and baseline health. For women, there was only a significant grade gradient in depressive symptoms among those reporting physical ill health. CONCLUSIONS: Some risk factors contribute jointly to the explanation of social inequalities in mental and physical health although their relative importance differs. Work is most important for inequalities in depressive symptoms in men, and work and material disadvantage are equally important in explaining inequalities in depressive symptoms in women while health behaviours are more important for explaining inequalities in physical functioning. These risk factors did not account for the association between mental health and physical health or the greater comorbidity seen in women of lower socioeconomic status. The risk of secondary psychological distress among those with physical ill health is greater in the low employment grades.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.328
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.148 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it