Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on May 17, 2007
International Journal of Epidemiology 2007 36(3):566-568; doi:10.1093/ije/dym099
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
36/3/566    most recent
dym099v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Glymour, M M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Glymour, M M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2007; all rights reserved.

Commentary: Selected samples and nebulous measures: some methodological difficulties in life-course epidemiology

M Maria Glymour

Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, 722 W. 168th St room 1603, New York, New York 10032
E-mail: mg2630@columbia.edu
Maria Glymour is a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health and Society Scholar at Columbia University.

Accepted 17 April 2007

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.


   Introduction
 
Ramsay et al.'s article1 contributes to a growing body of research on early life characteristics that predict health in adulthood.2–4 This research demonstrates that adults who lived in deprived socio-economic circumstances as children are more likely to suffer from cardiovascular disease than adults who had privileged childhoods; an association that holds even among people with comparable indicators of adult socio-economic position (SEP). These articles provide a welcome impetus to consider how adult health is shaped by early life experiences, but they face a number of methodological problems that compromise causal inference regarding the effects of childhood social conditions on adult health. In this commentary, I wish to focus on just two of these problems: loss to follow-up and inadequate measurement.

Throughout, I assume that the primary causal question of interest is how adult health would differ if we intervened to change childhood SEP, and a . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   Methodology
 
What counts as loss to follow-up in a life-course study?
What are we measuring and how well are we measuring it?

   Conclusion
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?