PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Bridger Staatz, Charis
AU  - Gutin, Iliya
AU  - Tilstra, Andrea
AU  - Gimeno, Laura
AU  - Moltrecht, Bettina
AU  - Moreno-Agostino, Dario
AU  - Moulton, Vanessa
AU  - Narayanan, Martina K.
AU  - Dowd, Jennifer B.
AU  - Gaydosh, Lauren
AU  - Ploubidis, George B.
TI  - Midlife Health in Britain and the US: A comparison of Two Nationally Representative Cohorts
AID  - 10.1101/2023.12.21.23300366
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.12.21.23300366
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/24/2023.12.21.23300366.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/24/2023.12.21.23300366.full
AB  - Background Older adults in the United States (US) have worse health and wider socioeconomic inequalities in health compared to Britain. Less is known about how health in the two countries compares in midlife, a time of emerging health decline, including inequalities in health.Methods We compare measures of smoking status, alcohol consumption, obesity, self-rated health, cholesterol, blood pressure, and glycated haemoglobin using population-weighted modified Poisson regression in the 1970 British Cohort Study (BCS70) in Britain (N= 9,665) and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health) in the US (N=12,297), when cohort members were aged 34-46 and 33-43, respectively. We test whether associations vary by early- and mid-life socioeconomic position.Findings US adults had higher levels of obesity, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. Prevalence of poor self-rated health, heavy drinking, and smoking was worse in Britain. We found smaller socioeconomic inequalities in midlife health in Britain compared to the US. For some outcomes (e.g., smoking), the most socioeconomically advantaged group in the US was healthier than the equivalent group in Britain. For other outcomes (hypertension and cholesterol), the most advantaged US group fared equal to or worse than the most disadvantaged groups in Britain.Interpretation US adults have worse cardiometabolic health than British counterparts, even in early midlife. The smaller socioeconomic inequalities and better overall health in Britain may reflect differences in access to health care, welfare systems, or other environmental risk factors.Funding ESRC, UKRI, MRC, NIH, European Research Council, Leverhulme TrustEvidence before this study This study considered a range of seminal evidence published in academic journals, focusing on international comparisons of health, of which the majority has been conducted in older age cohorts (adults over the age of 50) in Britain and the US. We focused our search on cross-country comparisons and international surveys of ageing, such as the Health and Retirement Survey in the US, and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing in Britain. We limited our search to English language publications and included studies that considered both overall differences in health, and differences in socioeconomic inequalities in health. The majority of considered studies found older adults in the US to have worse health than in Britain, and with greater evidence of inequalities for older adults in the US. However, older adults in Britain were more likely to exhibit worse health behaviours than those in the US.Added value of this study This study adds value by investigating health in early midlife (30s and 40s), a period less researched compared to older age. Midlife is an important time in the life course where early signs of decline can be observed and when there is still an opportunity to promote healthy aging. The importance of midlife is consistent with the need to understand healthy ageing as a life-long process. This study uses biomarkers as objective measures of cardiometabolic health and involved retrospective harmonisation of cohorts in Britain and the US, helping lay the groundwork for efforts to harmonise cohorts at younger ages and facilitate comparative work.Implications of all the available evidence We find that health in US adults is worse than their peers in Britain at even earlier ages (30s-40s years of age) than previously documented, especially for cardiometabolic measures. While associations of childhood socioeconomic status and later health were found in both Britain and the US, adult socioeconomic measures largely accounted for these associations. This finding is consistent with previous work and underscores the persistence of socioeconomic position across the life course, with sustained impacts on health. Policies aimed at improving health must consider this link between early and later life socioeconomic circumstances.We also find wider socioeconomic inequalities in health outcomes in the US than Britain. For some outcomes the most advantaged groups in the US have similar or worse health than the most disadvantaged groups in Britain. These findings, along with previously published evidence, have implications for policy and practice, as they suggest sociopolitical differences between the two countries that may drive different health profiles. Systematic differences between Britain and the US in terms of health care and welfare provisions may drive both worse health, and wider inequalities in the US.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research was supported by: the ERSC [ES/V012789/1] and the National Institute of Health Research [COV-LT-0009-28654] (CBS); the Leverhulme Trust (Grant RC-2018-003) for the Leverhulme Centre for Demographic Science (AT, JD); European Research Council (ERC-2021-CoG-101002587) (AT, JD); the UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government's Horizon Europe funding guarantee EP/X027678/1 (AT); the UK Medical Research Council (grant number MR/N013867/1 to LGi); and the ESRC Centre for Society and Mental Health at King's College London [ES/S012567/1] (DM). The Centre for Longitudinal Studies is supported by the ESRC [grant numbers ES/M001660/1 and ES/W013142/1]. The views expressed are those of the authors and not those of the funders. This work was also supported by a grant, P30AG066614, awarded to the Center on Aging and Population Sciences at The University of Texas at Austin by the National Institute on Aging, and by grant, P2CHD042849, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (IG, LGa). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. This research uses data from Add Health, funded by grant P01 HD31921 (Harris) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. Add Health is currently directed by Robert A. Hummer and funded by the National Institute on Aging cooperative agreements U01 AG071448 (Hummer) and U01AG071450 (Aiello and Hummer) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Add Health was designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All data in BCS70 is available through an end user license through UKDS: https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/series/series?id=200001. Add Heath data can be accessed through a data application, see further details here: https://addhealth.cpc.unc.edu/data/.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data in BCS70 is available through an end user license through UKDS: https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/series/series?id=200001. Add Heath data can be accessed through a data application, see further details here: https://addhealth.cpc.unc.edu/data/. https://addhealth.cpc.unc.edu/data/ https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/series/series?id=200001