Time trends in family risks and their impact Stephan Collishaw & Barbara Maughan MRC SGDP Centre...
-
Upload
jonathan-kidd -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Time trends in family risks and their impact Stephan Collishaw & Barbara Maughan MRC SGDP Centre...
Time trends in family risks and their impact
Time trends in family risks and their impact
Stephan Collishaw & Barbara MaughanStephan Collishaw & Barbara Maughan
MRC SGDP CentreMRC SGDP CentreInstitute of Psychiatry King’s College LondonInstitute of Psychiatry King’s College London
Time trends in family risksTime trends in family risks
Recent decadesRecent decades• Marked changes in family demographicsMarked changes in family demographics
– age at marriage / cohabitationage at marriage / cohabitation– age at birth of first childage at birth of first child– family sizefamily size– partnership stability / breakdown partnership stability / breakdown – complexity of family formscomplexity of family forms
• Increases in psychosocial disorders among Increases in psychosocial disorders among young peopleyoung people
Time trends in adolescent conduct problemsTime trends in adolescent conduct problems 1974-19991974-1999
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
% h
igh
sco
res
1974 1986 1999
Boys
Girls
Collishaw et al, 2004
QuestionsQuestions• do changing family patterns ‘explain’ trends in do changing family patterns ‘explain’ trends in
child outcomes?child outcomes?
• do the same risk factors contribute todo the same risk factors contribute to
– individual differencesindividual differences in behaviour problems?in behaviour problems?
– overall overall levelslevels of behaviour problems?of behaviour problems?
• does thedoes the impactimpact of family risks change when of family risks change when
their prevalence changes?their prevalence changes?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1993 1996 1999
ONS Population Trends 102, 2000 &Social Trends 20, 1990
Divorce rate per 1,000 married population
1961-1999 (England & Wales) Divorce rate per 1,000 married population
1961-1999 (England & Wales)
HypothesisHypothesis• increasing prevalence of divorce associated increasing prevalence of divorce associated
with with reductionreduction in impact in impact– pre-divorce ‘selection’ effectspre-divorce ‘selection’ effects
• less troubled familiesless troubled families• less parental discordless parental discord
– post-divorce consequencespost-divorce consequences• less social stigmaless social stigma• increased awareness of impact for childrenincreased awareness of impact for children
Parental divorce and child outcomesmeta analysis (Amato, 2001)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Me
an
eff
ec
t s
ize
Academic Conduct Self-concept
1950-1979 1980-1989Decade of publication
Parental divorce and child outcomesmeta analysis (Amato, 2001)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
Me
an
eff
ec
t s
ize
Academic Conduct Self-concept
1950-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999Decade of publication
UK CohortsEly et al, 1999; Sigle-Rushton et al, 2005
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
OR / RR
Education Adult Malaise
1946 1958 1970Cohort
Possible explanationsPossible explanations• change in nature of marital dissolutionchange in nature of marital dissolution
– ‘‘low discord’ divorce especially distressing for low discord’ divorce especially distressing for childrenchildren
• increasing gap in economic well-beingincreasing gap in economic well-being– single-parent families not benefited from economic single-parent families not benefited from economic
expansionexpansion
AimsAims• update picture to include more recent cohortupdate picture to include more recent cohort• examine 3 family indicatorsexamine 3 family indicators
– family typefamily type– family incomefamily income– family sizefamily size
• explore changes in prevalence and impactexplore changes in prevalence and impact• illustrate changes in correlatesillustrate changes in correlates• test how far changing family risks ‘account for’ test how far changing family risks ‘account for’
rising levels of conduct problemsrising levels of conduct problems
Samples
C o h o r t 1
C o h o r t 2
C o h o r t 3
S t u d y N a t i o n a l C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t S t u d y ( N C D S )
1 9 7 0 B r i t i s h C o h o r t S t u d y ( B C S 7 0 )
O N S C h i l d M e n t a l H e a l t h S u r v e y
D e s i g n L o n g i t u d i n a l
L o n g i t u d i n a l
C r o s s - s e c t i o n a l
P a r e n t r a t i n g s
R u t t e r A R u t t e r A G o o d m a n S D Q
N A g e 1 6
1 0 , 4 9 9 1 9 7 4
7 , 2 9 3 1 9 8 6
8 6 8 1 9 9 9
Age 16
• Family-based correlates– Family type (single vs. step vs. intact)
– Family income (<60% median vs. remainder)
– Family size (4+ children vs. 1-3 children)
• Adolescent conduct problems– fighting
– bullying
– stealing
– lying
– disobedience
Measures
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1993 1996 1999
ONS Population Trends 102, 2000 &Social Trends 20, 1990
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Cohort 3
Divorce rate per 1,000 married population
1961-1999 (England & Wales) Divorce rate per 1,000 married population
1961-1999 (England & Wales)
Teenagers living with both birth parents
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
%
1974 1986 1999
Teenagers living in a step-family
0
5
10
15
20
%
1974 1986 1999
Teenagers living in single-parent households
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
%
1974 1986 1999
Low income by cohort: intact families
0
5
10
15
20
25
%
1974 1986 1999
Proportion of families in poverty: Single parent vs. intact families
01020304050607080
%
1974 1986 1999
SingleIntact
Increasing income-inequality: single parent vs. intact families
01020304050607080
%
1974 1986 1999
OR = 8.5
SingleIntact
Increasing income-inequality: single parent vs. intact families
01020304050607080
%
1974 1986 1999
OR = 8.5 OR = 10.1
SingleIntact
Increasing income-inequality: single parent vs. intact families
01020304050607080
%
1974 1986 1999
OR = 8.5 OR = 10.1 OR = 19.4
SingleIntact
Family type and conduct problems by cohort
0
2468
101214161820
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
Intact
Single parent
Family typeOR = 1.9
Family type and conduct problems by cohort
0
2468
101214161820
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
Intact
Single parent
Family typeOR = 1.9
OR = 2.1
Family type and conduct problems by cohort
0
2468
101214161820
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
Intact
Single parent
Family typeOR = 1.9
OR = 2.1
OR = 1.8
Family type and conduct problems by cohort
0
2468
101214161820
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
Intact
Step family
Family type
OR = 2.7
Family type and conduct problems by cohort
0
2468
101214161820
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
Intact
Step family
Family type
OR = 2.7OR = 2.2
Family type and conduct problems by cohort
0
2468
101214161820
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
Intact
Step family
Family type
OR = 2.7OR = 2.2
OR = 1.6
Summary: family type
Risk factor Exposure ‘Impact’
Single parent family Up No change
Step family Up Down?
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
1974 1986 1999
aver
age
inco
me
(100
= 1
970
leve
l)
Social Trends, 2002
Absolute household disposable income in the UK
(1974-1999)
Absolute household disposable income in the UK
(1974-1999)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1974 1986 1999
< 6
0% m
edia
n i
nco
me
Children All households
Social Trends, 2006
“Relative poverty” in the UK (1974-1999) “Relative poverty” in the UK (1974-1999)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1974 1986 1999
< 6
0% m
edia
n i
nco
me
“Relative poverty” by study cohort “Relative poverty” by study cohort
‘Relative poverty’ and conduct problems by cohort
0
5
10
15
20
25
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
no
yes
Low incomeOR = 1.4
‘Relative poverty’ and conduct problems by cohort
0
5
10
15
20
25
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
no
yes
Low incomeOR = 1.4
OR = 2.1
‘Relative poverty’ and conduct problems by cohort
0
5
10
15
20
25
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
no
yes
Low incomeOR = 1.4
OR = 2.1
OR = 1.7
Family size by cohort: % four or more children
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
%
1974 1986 1999
Family size and conduct problems by cohort
0
5
10
15
20
25
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
0-3
4+
N childrenOR = 3.0
Family size and conduct problems by cohort
0
5
10
15
20
25
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
0-3
4+
N childrenOR = 3.0
OR = 2.3
Family size and conduct problems by cohort
0
5
10
15
20
25
% c
on
du
ct p
rob
lem
s
1974 1986 1999
0-3
4+
N childrenOR = 3.0
OR = 2.3
OR = 1.8
Summary of findings up to now
Risk factor Exposure ‘Impact’
Single parent family Up No change
Step family Up Down?
‘Relative poverty’ No change Up
Large family size Down Down
Conduct problems: high scores
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
% h
igh
sco
res
1974 1986 1999
Boys
Girls
Total OR = 1.56 per cohort
What contributes to time trends in conduct problems?
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Base model Family type and lowincome
Od
ds
rati
o
What contributes to time trends in conduct problems?
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Base model Family type and lowincome
Od
ds
rati
o
What contributes to time trends in conduct problems?
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Base model Family type andlow income
All predictors
Od
ds
rati
o
What contributes to time trends in conduct problems?
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Base model Family type andlow income
All predictors
Od
ds
rati
o
Some conclusions
• 1. Parallel trends in risks and outcomes do not imply a causal link
– Increase in divorce rate over the past 30 years– Increase in conduct problems over the same time period– However, trends in family type appear largely
independent of trends in conduct problems
Some conclusions
• 2. Correlates of risk factors may change over time
– E.g. Amato– Only had limited data with which to look at this– Socio-economic disadvantage even more strongly
associated with single parenthood in more recent cohorts
Some conclusions
• 3. Implication: changes in impact of a risk factor as important as changes in exposure
– Focus on changes in exposure insufficient– Also need to consider possible change in association
between risk and outcome
– E.g. 1: family type and conduct problems; impact the same or reduced over time
– E.g. 2: relative poverty and conduct problems; impact gone
up over time
Some conclusions.
• 4. Different explanatory models needed for understanding individual differences and level differences
– Family type, income and size all associated with CP at individual level
– But, trends in these aspects of family life only made modest contribution to understanding of level differences
– Different factors may be relevant for the two
Time trends in family risks and their impact
Time trends in family risks and their impact
Stephan Collishaw & Barbara MaughanStephan Collishaw & Barbara Maughan
MRC SGDP CentreMRC SGDP CentreInstitute of Psychiatry King’s College LondonInstitute of Psychiatry King’s College London
Prevalence and odds of low income by family type and cohort
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%
Traditional Single Step
1974
1986
1999
8.5 10.1 19.4
1.6 2.2 1.6
OR =
OR =