IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Social class differences in mortality using the new UK National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification

Listed author(s):
  • Chandola, Tarani
Registered author(s):

    Social class differences in health in the UK have usually been demonstrated by the Registrar General's social classification (RGSC). It is being replaced by the new UK National Statistics Socio-Economic Classification (NS-SEC). The NS-SEC is explicitly based on differences between employment relations and conditions. The mechanisms underlying social class differences in health remain debatable. Some studies have hypothesised that class differences in work characteristics and employment conditions may explain part of the observed class differences in health. This study investigates the associations of the NS-SEC and other measures of socio-economic status (SES) with mortality outcomes in a 7-year panel study representative of British private households and their members (the British Household Panel Survey, n=10264). The NS-SEC was neither significantly associated with mortality for respondents of all ages nor with mortality for a younger subsample who were under 65 years at the initial survey. Other measures of SES, especially income and housing tenure showed significant patterns of inequalities in mortality. It may be useful to use other measures of SES along with the NS-SEC when analysing social inequalities in health and mortality.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 50 (2000)
    Issue (Month): 5 (March)
    Pages: 641-649

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:5:p:641-649
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:5:p:641-649. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.