Chandola T
Dept. of Applied Social Studies and Social Research, Oxford, UK.
Soc Sci Med. 1998 Aug;47(4):525-33. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00141-5.
The British Registrar General's Social Classification has been strongly criticised for its lack of explanatory value. Furthermore, studies of social inequality in coronary heart disease (CHD) outcomes have often found associations between measures of inequality and heart disease unaccounted by conventional CHD risk factors. Alternative occupational classifications such as the Erikson-Goldthorpe schema and the Cambridge scale could be used to explore potential causal narratives which explain such residual associations. Results from a longitudinal study of adults in Britain show that the Cambridge scale has the strongest association with CHD and part of its strength is due to its strong association with CHD related health behaviours. Women classified by their partner's occupation had stronger associations with CHD compared to classifications by their own occupation. Job strain may not account for the observed social inequalities in CHD. The Cambridge scale shows stronger patterns of linear association with CHD than the RGSC and should be included in other studies of social inequality in health in the U.K.
英国总登记官的社会分类因其缺乏解释价值而受到强烈批评。此外，对冠心病（CHD）结局中社会不平等的研究经常发现，不平等指标与心脏病之间存在关联，而传统的冠心病危险因素无法解释这种关联。诸如埃里克森 - 戈德索普模式和剑桥量表等替代性职业分类可用于探索潜在的因果关系，以解释此类残留关联。一项针对英国成年人的纵向研究结果表明，剑桥量表与冠心病的关联最为紧密，其部分优势在于它与冠心病相关健康行为的紧密关联。与根据自身职业分类相比，按伴侣职业分类的女性与冠心病的关联更强。工作压力可能无法解释观察到的冠心病社会不平等现象。与英国总登记官社会分类（RGSC）相比，剑桥量表与冠心病呈现出更强的线性关联模式，应纳入英国其他健康领域社会不平等的研究中。
