Search

National audience; Présentation du dossier : "Mettre en mots la comparaison : analyse de pratiques"

not Available.

not Available.

Rationale The number of older parents living without adult children has increased dramatically over the last decades. However, recent trends exacerbated by the Great Recession have led to an increase in intergenerational co-residing. Methods We used three waves of data (2004–2010) from the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) collected around the Great Recession to assess the effects of intergenerational co-residence on mental health in later life (n = 50,043). We used an instrumental variable (IV) approach that exploits changes in employment opportunities of adult children during the Great Recession to examine the impact of co-residing with adult children on depression scores measured using the Euro-D scale of depression. Results Northern European countries exhibited low levels of both co-residence and depression in older age, while most countries in Eastern and Southern Europe had high levels of both co-residence and depression. In OLS models that controlled for measured characteristics, co-residing with an adult child was not associated with depressive symptoms in older parents ( β = −0.0387; 95% CI –0.0892 to 0.0118). By contrast, results from IV models suggest that co-residing with an adult child significantly reduces depressive symptoms by 0.731 points (95% CI -1.261 to −0.200) on the 12-item scale. Results were robust to a series of robustness checks including controls for child characteristics, country-specific time trends, and analyses restricted to homeowners. Conclusions Our findings suggest that, in the context of high unemployment rates during the Great Recession in Europe, increased intergenerational exchange between adult children and older parents in the form of co-residence had positive mental health effects on older parents.

Le New Labour a fait de l’ouverture au « choix » l’un des principaux axes de sa réforme du système de santé britannique. Si cette ouverture a été bien documentée, peu de travaux se sont intéressés à l’impact de cette réforme sur la politique de santé mentale. L’objectif de l’article est donc de présenter cette réforme mettant en oeuvre des choix élargis pour les usagers des services de santé mentale. L’hypothèse centrale de l’article est que l’introduction inachevée du « choix » pour les usagers des services de santé mentale cristallise les difficultés et les paradoxes de la réforme du New Labour., New Labour made openness to “choice” one of the main points of its reform of the British health care system. While this openness has been well documented, few studies have explored the impact of the reform on mental health policy. The objective of this paper is to examine the reform, which implemented a broader range of choices for the users of mental health services. The paper’s main hypothesis is that the incomplete introduction of “choice” for the users of mental health services crystallizes the problems and paradoxes of New Labour’s reform.

Background Lung function is an important predictor of health and a marker of physical functioning at older ages. This study aimed to quantify the years of lung function lost according to disadvantaged socioeconomic conditions across the life-course. Methods This multicohort study used harmonised individual-level data from six European cohorts with information on life-course socioeconomic disadvantage and lung function assessed by forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC). 70 496 participants (51% female) aged 18–93 years were included. Socioeconomic disadvantage was measured in early life (low paternal occupational position), early adulthood (low educational level) and adulthood (low occupational position). Risk factors for poor lung function (e.g. smoking, obesity, sedentary behaviour, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases) were included as potential mediators. The years of lung function lost due to socioeconomic disadvantage were computed at each life stage. Results Socioeconomic disadvantage during the life-course was associated with a lower FEV1. By the age of 45 years, individuals experiencing disadvantaged socioeconomic conditions had lost 4–5 years of healthy lung function versus their more advantaged counterparts (low educational level −4.36 (95% CI −7.33–−2.37) for males and −5.14 (−10.32–−2.71) for females; low occupational position −5.62 (−7.98–−4.90) for males and −4.32 (−13.31–−2.27) for females), after accounting for the risk factors for lung function. By the ages of 65 years and 85 years, the years of lung function lost due to socioeconomic disadvantage decreased by 2–4 years, depending on the socioeconomic indicator. Sensitivity analysis using FVC yielded similar results to those using FEV1. Conclusion Life-course socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with lower lung function and predicts a significant number of years of lung function loss in adulthood and at older ages. This work was supported by European regional development fund through the Operational Programme Competitiveness and Internationalisation and national funding from the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT; Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education) under the EPIUnit, Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto, Portugal (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006862; reference: UID/DTP/04750/2019). It is also supported by the European Commission (Horizon 2020 grant number 633666), PhD grant SFRH/BD/103726/2014 (V. Rocha) co-funded by FCT and the POCH/FSE Program, FCT contract info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/FCT/CEEC IND 2017/CEECIND/01516/2017/CP1406/CT0001/PT/CP1406/CT0001 (S. Fraga), and by the University of Lausanne (Pro-Femmes grant, S. Stringhini). M. Kivimaki was supported by the Medical Research Council (K013351, R024227), the US National Institute on Aging (R01AG056477), NordForsk, the Academy of Finland (311492), and Helsinki Institute of Life Science during the conduct of the study. The CoLaus|PsyCoLaus study is supported by research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, the Faculty of Biology and Medicine of Lausanne, and the Swiss National Science Foundation (grants 3200B0_105993, 3200B0_118308, 33CSCO_122661, 33CS30_139468 and 33CS30_14840). The Constances cohort is supported by the Caisse nationale d'assurance maladie and by a grant from the Agence nationale de la recherche (ANR-11-INBS-0002). Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

National audience; Si l'on accepte de scinder schématiquement les discussions sur l'analyse comparée en sciences sociales en quelques grandes catégories, trois questions émergent rapidement du débat scientifique : à partir de quel nombre de cas d'étude n peut-on établir une comparaison correcte ? Quel est l'intérêt respectif de ces comparaisons ? Et surtout, quelles méthodes s'appliquent selon le nombre de cas d'études retenu ? Une quatrième question, d'ordre pratique, concerne ensuite le rendu, à l'écrit, du travail comparatif. Ce dernier questionnement devient crucial si l'on fait l'hypothèse que cette étape de mise en forme influe sur la capacité de généralisation et sur le degré de cumulativité des analyses. Au cours des deux décennies passées, le débat mené au sein du sous-champ de l'analyse politique comparée s'accorde sur la proposition suivante : toute comparaison à n = 1 est envisageable et susceptible d'avoir un intérêt scientifique, si et seulement si la comparaison s'accompagne d'un cadre interprétatif valide au regard de la méthode employée. Or la validité des comparaisons fondées sur un faible nombre de cas d'études reste sujette à un débat intense, d'autant plus que leur mode de présentation écrite procure parfois l'illusion d'une juxtaposition monographique, au détriment de l'objectif initial de généralisation porté par l'analyse comparée. L'objet de cette communication consiste à montrer que ce débat présente l'avantage d'avoir incité les utilisateurs de cadres interprétatifs construits sur des comparaisons à « faible n » à préciser leur pensée sur la teneur de leurs analyses. Cette observation est illustrée à partir du cas des comparaisons à n = 2, dites comparaisons « pair à pair ». Une réflexion supplémentaire sur la production écrite des recherches comparatives, et plus particulièrement des comparaisons « pair à pair », permettra d'introduire certaines considérations d'ordre rédactionnel et visuel encore peu abordées dans les formations à l'analyse comparée.