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

Health selection in the Whitehall II study, UK

Listed author(s):
  • Chandola, Tarani
  • Bartley, Mel
  • Sacker, Amanda
  • Jenkinson, Crispin
  • Marmot, Michael
Registered author(s):

    There has been considerable debate over the importance of the health selection hypothesis for explaining social gradients in health. Although studies have argued that it may not be an important explanation of social gradients in health, previous analyses have not estimated, simultaneously, the relative effect of health on changes in social position and of social position on changes in health (social causation). Cross-lagged longitudinal analyses using structural equation models enable the estimation of the relative size of these pathways which would be useful in determining the relative importance of the health selection hypothesis over the social causation hypothesis. Data from four phases of the Whitehall II study (initially consisting of 10,308 men and women aged 35-55 in the British civil service) were collected over a 10 year period. There was no evidence for an effect of mental (GHQ-30 and SF36) or physical health (SF-36) on changes in employment grade. When financial deprivation was used as a measure of social position, there was a significant effect of mental health on changes in social position among men although this health selection effect was over two and a half times smaller than the effect of social position on changes in health. The results suggest that the development of social gradients in health in the Whitehall II study may not be primarily explained in terms of a health selection effect.

    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): 56 (2003)
    Issue (Month): 10 (May)
    Pages: 2059-2072

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:10:p:2059-2072
    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:56:y:2003:i:10:p:2059-2072. 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.