Dataset Information

Is studying medicine good for your health? Long-term health outcomes of a cohort of clinical medicine graduates in England and Wales in the ONS Longitudinal Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To quantify the potential protective effect on health associated with study of a clinical medicine degree.

Design

Prospective population-based cohort data collected at census and linked over time: cohort born before 1976 and survived to 2011. Subgroup analysis on those who reported having a degree at 1991 census.

Setting

England and Wales population-based, including institutions.

Participants

159 116 men and 174 062 women; 13 390 men with degrees and 8143 women with degrees.

Main outcome measure

Self-reported general health in 2011 based on logistic regression analysis.

Results

Male graduates had 92% higher odds of having good or very good health than male non-graduates after adjustment for age and socioeconomic position (CI 1.82 to 2.03). Female graduates had 85% higher odds of having good or very good health than female non-graduates after adjustment for age and socioeconomic position (CI 1.73 to 1.98). Male clinical medicine graduates had 45% higher odds of having good or very good health than male humanities graduates after adjustment for age and socioeconomic position (CI 1.09 to 1.92). Male physical sciences graduates also had higher odds of having good or very good health than male humanities graduates after adjustment for age and socioeconomic position, but life sciences and social science graduates did not. There were no significant differences by degree subject for women.

Conclusions

Male graduates in clinical medicine have higher odds of good self-reported health. Knowledge of medicine may confer a health advantage for men above that of other degrees.

SUBMITTER: Shelton N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7978287 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:People who live in more deprived areas have poorer health outcomes, and this inequality is a major driver of health and social policy. Many interventions targeting these disparities implicitly assume that poorer health is predominantly associated with area-level factors, and that these inequalities are the same for men and women. However, health differentials due to individual socio-economic status (SES) of men and women are less well documented. We used census data linked to the ONS Longitudinal Study to derive individual-level SES in terms of occupation, education and estimated wage, and examined differences in adult mortality and life expectancy. We modelled age-, sex- and SES-specific mortality using Poisson regression, and summarised mortality differences using life expectancy at age 20. We compared the results to those calculated using area-level deprivation metrics. Wide inequalities in life expectancy between SES groups were observed, although differences across SES groups were smaller for women than for men. The widest inequalities were found across men's education (7.2-year (95% CI: 3.0-10.1) difference in life expectancy between groups) and wage (7.0-year (95% CI: 3.5-9.8) difference), and women's education (5.4-year (95% CI: 2.2-8.1) difference). Men with no qualifications had the lowest life expectancy of all groups. In terms of the number of years' difference in life expectancy, the inequalities measured here with individual-level data were of a similar magnitude to inequalities identified previously using area-level deprivation metrics. These data show that health inequalities are as strongly related to individual SES as to area-level deprivation, highlighting the complementary usefulness of these different metrics. Indeed, poor outcomes are likely to be a product of both community and individual influences. Current policy which bases health spending decisions on evidence of inequalities between geographical areas may overlook individual-level SES inequalities for those living in affluent areas, as well as missing important sex differences.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 poses one of the most profound public health crises for a hundred years. As of mid-May 2020, across the world, almost 300,000 deaths and over 4 million confirmed cases were registered. Reaching over 30,000 deaths by early May, the UK had the highest number of recorded deaths in Europe, second in the world only to the USA. Hospitalization and death from COVID-19 have been linked to demographic and socioeconomic variation. Since this varies strongly by location, there is an urgent need to analyse the mismatch between health care demand and supply at the local level. As lockdown measures ease, reinfection may vary by area, necessitating a real-time tool for local and regional authorities to anticipate demand.MethodsCombining census estimates and hospital capacity data from ONS and NHS at the Administrative Region, Ceremonial County (CC), Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and Lower Layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level from England and Wales, we calculate the number of individuals at risk of COVID-19 hospitalization. Combining multiple sources, we produce geospatial risk maps on an online dashboard that dynamically illustrate how the pre-crisis health system capacity matches local variations in hospitalization risk related to age, social deprivation, population density and ethnicity, also adjusting for the overall infection rate and hospital capacity.ResultsBy providing fine-grained estimates of expected hospitalization, we identify areas that face higher disproportionate health care burdens due to COVID-19, with respect to pre-crisis levels of hospital bed capacity. Including additional risks beyond age-composition of the area such as social deprivation, race/ethnic composition and population density offers a further nuanced identification of areas with disproportionate health care demands.ConclusionsAreas face disproportionate risks for COVID-19 hospitalization pressures due to their socioeconomic differences and the demographic composition of their populations. Our flexible online dashboard allows policy-makers and health officials to monitor and evaluate potential health care demand at a granular level as the infection rate and hospital capacity changes throughout the course of this pandemic. This agile knowledge is invaluable to tackle the enormous logistical challenges to re-allocate resources and target susceptible areas for aggressive testing and tracing to mitigate transmission.