Parental socioeconomic status and binge drinking in adolescents: A systematic review

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 610-619 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ka Ho Robin Kwok ◽  
Sze Ngar Vanessa Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Binge Drinking ◽  
Parental Socioeconomic Status

Emotional processes in binge drinking: A systematic review and perspective

2021 ◽  
Vol 84 ◽  
pp. 101971 ◽  
Author(s):  
Séverine Lannoy ◽  
Theodora Duka ◽  
Carina Carbia ◽  
Joël Billieux ◽  
Sullivan Fontesse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Binge Drinking ◽  
Emotional Processes

scholarly journals Understanding the influence of socioeconomic status on the association between combinations of lifestyle factors and adverse health outcomes: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. e042212
Author(s):  
Hamish Foster ◽  
Peter Polz ◽  
Frances Mair ◽  
Jason Gill ◽  
Catherine A O'Donnell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Lifestyle Factors ◽  
Lifestyle Factor ◽  
Unhealthy Lifestyle ◽  
Adverse Health ◽  
Adverse Health Outcomes ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionCombinations of unhealthy lifestyle factors are strongly associated with mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. It is unclear how socioeconomic status (SES) affects those associations. Lower SES groups may be disproportionately vulnerable to the effects of unhealthy lifestyle factors compared with higher SES groups via interactions with other factors associated with low SES (eg, stress) or via accelerated biological ageing. This systematic review aims to synthesise studies that examine how SES moderates the association between lifestyle factor combinations and adverse health outcomes. Greater understanding of how lifestyle risk varies across socioeconomic spectra could reduce adverse health by (1) identifying novel high-risk groups or targets for future interventions and (2) informing research, policy and interventions that aim to support healthy lifestyles in socioeconomically deprived communities.Methods and analysisThree databases will be searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL) from inception to March 2020. Reference lists, citations and grey literature will also be searched. Inclusion criteria are: (1) prospective cohort studies; (2) investigations of two key exposures: (a) lifestyle factor combinations of at least three lifestyle factors (eg, smoking, physical activity and diet) and (b) SES (eg, income, education or poverty index); (3) an assessment of the impact of SES on the association between combinations of unhealthy lifestyle factors and health outcomes; (4) at least one outcome from—mortality (all cause, CVD and cancer), CVD or cancer incidence. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full texts of included studies. Data extraction will focus on cohort characteristics, exposures, direction and magnitude of SES effects, methods and quality (via Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). If appropriate, a meta-analysis, pooling the effects of SES, will be performed. Alternatively, a synthesis without meta-analysis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication, professional networks, social media and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020172588.

Socioeconomic status and oral health‐related quality of life: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica K. Knorst ◽  
Camila S. Sfreddo ◽  
Gabriela F. Meira ◽  
Fabrício B. Zanatta ◽  
Mario V. Vettore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Oral Health ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

scholarly journals Do quality improvement initiatives for diabetes care address social inequities? Secondary analysis of a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacquie Boyang Lu ◽  
Kristin J Danko ◽  
Michael D Elfassy ◽  
Vivian Welch ◽  
Jeremy M Grimshaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Place Of Residence ◽  
Disadvantaged Groups ◽  
Disadvantaged Populations ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Race Ethnicity

BackgroundSocially disadvantaged populations carry a disproportionate burden of diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. There is an emerging interest in quality improvement (QI) strategies in the care of patients with diabetes, however, the effect of these interventions on disadvantaged groups remains unclear.ObjectiveThis is a secondary analysis of a systematic review that seeks to examine the extent of equity considerations in diabetes QI studies, specifically quantifying the proportion of studies that target interventions toward disadvantaged populations and conduct analyses on the impact of interventions on disadvantaged groups.Research design and methodsStudies were identified using Medline, HealthStar and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database. Randomised controlled trials assessing 12 QI strategies targeting health systems, healthcare professionals and/or patients for the management of adult outpatients with diabetes were eligible. The place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupational status, gender/sexual identity, religious affiliations, education level, socioeconomic status, social capital, plus age, disability, sexual preferences and relationships (PROGRESS-Plus) framework was used to identify trials that focused on disadvantaged patient populations, to examine the types of equity-relevant factors that are being considered and to explore temporal trends in equity-relevant diabetes QI trials.ResultsOf the 278 trials that met the inclusion criteria, 95 trials had equity-relevant considerations. These include 64 targeted trials that focused on a disadvantaged population with the aim to improve the health status of that population and 31 general trials that undertook subgroup analyses to assess the extent to which their interventions may have had differential impacts on disadvantaged subgroups. Trials predominantly focused on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and place of residence as potential factors for disadvantage in patients receiving diabetes care.ConclusionsLess than one-third of diabetes QI trials included equity-relevant considerations, limiting the relevance and applicability of their data to disadvantaged populations. There is a need for better data collection, reporting, analysis and interventions on the social determinants of health that may influence the health outcomes of patients with diabetes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42013005165.

The Pathways Between Socioeconomic Status and Adolescent Outcomes: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 59 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 219-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bethany Devenish ◽  
Merrilyn Hooley ◽  
David Mellor
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Socioeconomic Status ◽  
Adolescent Outcomes
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document