Search

ObjectiveAlthough health inequalities in adolescence are well documented, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Few studies have examined the role of the family in explaining the association between the family's socioeconomic position and adolescents' self-rated health. The current study aimed to explore whether the association between socioeconomic position and self-rated health was mediated by familial determinants.MethodsUsing data from wave 2 of the"German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents" (KiGGS) (1,838 female and 1,718 male 11- to 17-year-olds), linear regression analyses were conducted to decompose the total effects of income, education, occupational status, socioeconomic position index and adolescents' subjective social status on self-rated health into direct effects and indirect effects through familial determinants (family cohesion, parental well-being, parental stress, parenting styles, parental obesity, smoking and sporting activity).ResultsA significant total effect of all socioeconomic position indicators on self-rated health was found, except for income in male adolescents. In female adolescents, more than 70% of the total effects of each socioeconomic position indicator were explained by familial mediators, whereas no significant direct effects remained. The most important mediator was parental well-being, followed by family cohesion, parental smoking and sporting activity. In male adolescents, the associations between income, parental education, the socioeconomic position index and subjective social status were also mediated by familial determinants (family cohesion, parental smoking, obesity and living in a single-mother family). However, a significant direct effect of subjective social status remained.ConclusionThe analysis revealed how a family's position of socioeconomic disadvantage can lead to poorer health in adolescents through different family practices. The family appears to play an important role in explaining health inequalities, particularly in female adolescents. Reducing health inequalities in adolescence requires policy interventions (macro-level), community-based strategies (meso-level) and programs to improve parenting and family functioning (micro-level).

The main strategy for combatting SARS-CoV-2 infections in 2020 consisted of behavioural regulations including contact reduction, maintaining distance, hand hygiene, and mask wearing. COVID-19-related risk perception and knowledge may influence protective behaviour, and education could be an important determinant. The current study investigated differences by education level in risk perception, knowledge and protective behaviour regarding COVID-19 in Germany, exploring the development of the pandemic over time. The COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring study is a repeated cross-sectional online survey conducted during the pandemic in Germany from 3 March 2020 (waves 1-28: 27,957 participants aged 18-74). Differences in risk perception, knowledge and protective behaviour according to education level (high versus low) were analysed using linear and logistic regression. Time trends were accounted for by interaction terms for education level and calendar week. Regarding protective behaviour, interaction terms were tested for all risk perception and knowledge variables with education level. The strongest associations with education level were evident for perceived and factual knowledge regarding COVID-19. Moreover, associations were found between low education level and higher perceived severity, and between low education level and lower perceived probability. Highly educated men were more worried about COVID-19 than those with low levels of education. No educational differences were observed for perceived susceptibility or fear. Higher compliance with hand washing was found in highly educated women, and higher compliance with maintaining distance was found in highly educated men. Regarding maintaining distance, the impact of perceived severity differed between education groups. In men, significant moderation effects of education level on the association between factual knowledge and all three protective behaviours were found. During the pandemic, risk perception and protective behaviour varied greatly over time. Overall, differences by education level were relatively small. For risk communication, reaching all population groups irrespective of education level is critical.

This study's aim was to investigate the association between family structure and different health-related outcomes in adolescence (self-rated health, emotional and behavioural problems, health-related quality of life, regular smoking, and heavy episodic drinking). Furthermore, we analysed the extent to which socio-economic status, family cohesion and the pre-transition health status explain family structure-related health disparities.We used longitudinal data from the first two waves of the German KiGGS cohort study carried out by the Robert Koch Institute (baseline: 2003-2006, follow-up: 2009-2012). The sample comprised 4,692 respondents aged 11 to 17 years. Using data from both waves, effects of family structure on health status at follow-up were calculated applying linear and logistic regression models.We found that adolescents continuously living with both birth parents were in good health. Adolescents whose parents separated after the baseline survey, reported poorer health and were more likely to smoke. The transition from stepfamily to single parent family was also associated with a higher risk of regular smoking. Lower health-related quality of life as well as higher scores for emotional and behavioural problems occurred in almost all non-nuclear family structures, although not all effects were statistically significant. No significant effects of family structure on heavy episodic drinking were found. While family cohesion mediated the effects of family structure on adolescents' health, the mediating effect of socio-economic status was small. After controlling for pre-transition health, the effects were even lower.Because the direct effects of family structure on adolescents' health were small and family cohesion was found to be an important mediator in the association between family structure and adolescents' health, prevention programmes and interventions should be directed towards the parent-adolescent relationship rather than just the family structure, in order to minimize the psychosocial stress of adolescents during the period of family transition.

BACKGROUND:Socially disadvantaged people have an increased need for medical care due to a higher burden of health problems and chronic diseases. In Germany, outpatient care is chiefly provided by office-based general practitioners and specialists in private practice. People are free to choose the physician they prefer. In this study, national data were used to examine differences in the use of outpatient medical care by socioeconomic status (SES). METHODS:The analyses were based on data from 6,754 participants in the Robert Koch Institute's German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Adults (DEGS1) aged between 18 and 69 years. The number of outpatient physician visits during the past twelve months was assessed for several medical specializations. SES was determined based on education, occupation, and income. Associations between SES and physician visits were analysed using logistic regression and zero-truncated negative binomial regression for count data. RESULTS:After adjusting for sociodemographic factors and health indicators, outpatients with low SES had more contacts with general practitioners than outpatients with high SES (men: incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08-1.46; women: IRR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.07-1.34). The use of specialists was lower in people with low SES than in those with high SES when sociodemographic factors and health indicators were adjusted for (men: odds ratio [OR] = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.51-0.91; women: OR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.41-0.77). This applied particularly to specialists in internal medicine, dermatology, and gynaecology. The associations remained after additional adjustment for the type of health insurance and the regional density of office-based physicians. CONCLUSION:The findings suggest that socially disadvantaged people are seen by general practitioners more often than the socially better-off, who are more likely to visit a medical specialist. These differences may be due to differences in patient preferences, physician factors, physician-patient interaction, and potential barriers to accessing specialist care.