A Qualitative Descriptive Exploration of the Determinants of Subjective Social Status and the Pathways Through Which Subjective Social Status Shapes Health and Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Socioeconomic position (SEP) is traditionally measured using objective indicators (i.e. income, occupation, education) which may not capture the many pathways through which health inequities are generated. The MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (SSS) is a subjective measure of SEP thought to reflect individuals’ perceptions of their social position, with high predictive utility for health. Despite the scale’s utility, there is limited research investigating the factors and reference groups that shape SSS. The mechanisms through which SSS shapes health also remain unclear, with literature suggesting both materialistic and psychosocial explanations. Objectives: Our study explored the factors and reference groups that working-aged adults consider when evaluating their SSS, and the pathways through which they perceive these factors shape their health and well-being. Methods: Our study employed qualitative descriptive methodology. We recruited 25 adults living in Alberta, aged 30-50, to participate in think-aloud style, semi-structured interviews. Data was analyzed using a semi-deductive, directed content analysis approach. Results: Four major themes summarized participants’ experiences: 1) The significance of reference groups in shaping SSS; 2) The big 3 determinants of SSS - Income, occupation, education; 3) Unique circumstances lead to unique conceptualizations of SSS; and 4) SSS affects mental wellbeing Conclusions: The primary determinants of SSS in working-aged adults in Canada are income, occupation and education. Additional determinants include gender, health and disability, and racial identity. Reference groups also significantly shaped SSS and differed across individuals. Study findings demonstrated that SSS shaped mental well-being through both materialist and psychosocial pathways, which suggests that researchers and policymakers must act upon structural SDH, especially income, education, and occupation, as well as upon the psychosocial stress resulting from social comparisons to reduce inequities in health.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".