Self-rated life expectancy and lifetime socio-economic position: cross-sectional analysis of the British household panel survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between mortality risk and socio-economic position (SEP) across the lifecourse is established. This study investigates whether people's own ratings of their life expectancy are also associated with lifetime SEP. Health behaviour messages, which often emphasize the long-term benefits of behavioural change, may be received differently depending on people's perceptions of their life chances. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of 4780 adults aged 25-64 interviewed in the British Household Panel Survey in 2001. RESULTS: Just under a quarter of respondents did not think it likely they would live to 75 or older. People in lower SEPs were more likely to be pessimistic about their life expectancy. This applied across a number of socio-economic measures (father's social class, educational achievement, own social class, and household income). Eight socio-economic lifecourse pathways were compared. In comparison to those following the most advantaged pathway, those experiencing sustained socio-economic disadvantage were most likely to be pessimistic about their longevity, but those experiencing sustained upward mobility did not differ. Comparisons with measures of self-rated general health and limiting illness suggest that self-rated life expectancy is at least partially independent of current health status. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that people's own perceptions of their life expectancy are associated with lifetime SEP. Self-rated life expectancy, in part, appears to reflect something over and above current health status and smoking behaviour. Given its ease of collection, it would be informative to include self-rated life expectancy in future studies.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".