bioRxiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/074815

The Causal Effects of Education on Health, Mortality, Cognition, Well-being, and Income in the UK Biobank

Neil M Davies·Matt Dickson·George Davey Smith·Gerard van den Berg·Frank Windmeijer
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Educated people are generally healthier, have fewer comorbidities and live longer than people with less education. Previous evidence about the effects of education come from observational studies many of which are affected by residual confounding. Legal changes to the minimum school leave age is a potential natural experiment which provides a potentially more robust source of evidence about the effects of schooling. Previous studies have exploited this natural experiment using population-level administrative data to investigate mortality, and relatively small surveys to investigate the effect on mortality. Here, we add to the evidence using data from a large sample from the UK Biobank. We exploit the raising of the school-leaving age in the UK in September 1972 as a natural experiment and regression discontinuity and instrumental variable estimators to identify the causal effects of staying on in school. Remaining in school was positively associated with 23 of 25 outcomes. After accounting for multiple hypothesis testing, we found evidence of causal effects on twelve outcomes, however, the associations of schooling and intelligence, smoking, and alcohol consumption may be due to genomic and socioeconomic confounding factors. Education affects some, but not all health and socioeconomic outcomes. Differences between educated and less educated people may be partially due to residual genetic and socioeconomic confounding.\n\nSignificance StatementOn average people who choose to stay in education for longer are healthier, wealthier, and live longer. We investigated the causal effects of education on health, income, and well-being later in life. This is the largest study of its kind to date and it has objective clinic measures of morbidity and aging. We found evidence that people who were forced to remain in school had higher wages and lower mortality. However, there was little evidence of an effect on intelligence later in life. Furthermore, estimates of the effects of education using conventionally adjusted regression analysis are likely to suffer from genomic confounding. In conclusion, education affects some, but not all health outcomes later in life.\n\nFundingThe Medical Research Council (MRC) and the University of Bristol fund the MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit [MC_UU_12013/1, MC_UU_12013/9]. NMD is supported by the Economics and Social Research Council (ESRC) via a Future Research Leaders Fellowship [ES/N000757/1]. The research described in this paper was specifically funded by a grant from the Economics and Social Research Council for Transformative Social Science. No funding body has influenced data collection, analysis or its interpretations. This publication is the work of the authors, who serve as the guarantors for the contents of this paper. This work was carried out using the computational facilities of the Advanced Computing Research Centre -http://www.bris.ac.uk/acrc/ and the Research Data Storage Facility of the University of Bristol -- http://www.bris.ac.uk/acrc/storage/. This research was conducted using the UK Biobank Resource.\n\nData accessThe statistical code used to produce these results can be accessed here: (https://github.com/nmdavies/UKbiobankROSLA). The final analysis dataset used in this study is archived with UK Biobank, which can be accessed by contacting UK Biobank access@biobank.ac.uk.

Explore related subjects

EpidemiologyPreprint

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Neil M Davies, Matt Dickson, George Davey Smith, Gerard van den Berg, Frank Windmeijer. 2016-09-13. The Causal Effects of Education on Health, Mortality, Cognition, Well-being, and Income in the UK Biobank. https://doi.org/10.1101/074815

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2016

A risk stratification approach for improved interpretation of diagnostic accuracy statistics

Diagnostic accuracy statistics, including predictive values, risk-differences, Youdens index and Area Under the Curve (AUC), assess the promise of novel biomarkers proposed as diagnostic tests. We reinterpret these statistics in light of risk-stratification (how well a biomarker separates those at higher risk from those at lower risk) to better understand their implications for public-health programs. We introduce an intuitively simple statistic, Mean Risk Stratification (MRS): the average change in risk (pre-test vs. post-test) revealed for tested individuals. High MRS implies better risk separation achieved by testing. MRS demonstrates that conventional predictive values can mislead because they do not account for disease prevalence or test-positivity rates. Little risk-stratification is possible for rare diseases, demonstrating a \"high-bar\" to justify population-based screening. Importantly, we demonstrate that the risk-difference, Youdens index, and AUC measure only multiplicative relative gains in risk-stratification: AUC=0.6 achieves only 20% of maximum risk-stratification (AUC=0.9 achieves 80%). However, large relative gains in risk-stratification might not imply large absolute gains if disease is rare or if the test is rarely positive. We illustrate MRS by our experience comparing the performance of cervical cancer screening tests in China vs. the USA. The test with the worst AUC=0.72 in China (visual inspection with ascetic acid) provides twice the risk-stratification of the test with best AUC=0.83 in the USA (human papillomavirus and Pap cotesting) because China has three times more cervical precancer/cancer. MRS could be routinely calculated to better understand the clinical/public-health implications of standard diagnostic accuracy statistics.

Epidemiology↗
bioRxiv2016

Collider Scope: How selection bias can induce spurious associations

Large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies have transformed our understanding of the genetic and environmental determinants of health outcomes. However, the representativeness of these samples may be limited - either through selection into studies, or by attrition from studies over time. Here we explore the potential impact of this selection bias on results obtained from these studies, from the perspective that this amounts to conditioning on a collider (i.e., a form of collider bias). While it is acknowledged that selection bias will have a strong effect on representativeness and prevalence estimates, it is often assumed that it should not have a strong impact on estimates of associations. We argue that because selection can induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that third variable is conditioned upon), selection can lead to substantially biased estimates of associations. In particular, selection related to phenotypes can bias associations with genetic variants associated with those phenotypes. In simulations, we show that even modest influences on selection into, or attrition from, a study can generate biased and potentially misleading estimates of both phenotypic and genotypic associations. Our results highlight the value of knowing which population your study sample is representative of. If the factors influencing selection and attrition are known, they can be adjusted for. For example, having DNA available on most participants in a birth cohort study offers the possibility of investigating the extent to which polygenic scores predict subsequent participation, which in turn would enable sensitivity analyses of the extent to which bias might distort estimates.\n\nKey MessagesSelection bias (including selective attrition) may limit the representativeness of large-scale cross-sectional and cohort studies.\n\nThis selection bias may induce collider bias (which occurs when two variables independently influence a third variable, and that variable is conditioned upon).\n\nThis may lead to substantially biased estimates of associations, including of genetic associations, even when selection / attrition is relatively modest.

Epidemiology↗
bioRxiv2016

A comparative analysis of Chikungunya and Zika transmission

The recent global dissemination of Chikungunya and Zika has fostered public health concern worldwide. To better understand the drivers of transmission of these two arboviral diseases, we propose a joint analysis of Chikungunya and Zika epidemics in the same territories, taking into account the common epidemiological features of the epidemics: transmitted by the same vector, in the same environments, and observed by the same surveillance systems. We analyse eighteen outbreaks in French Polynesia and the French West Indies using a hierarchical time-dependent SIR model accounting for the effect of virus, location and weather on transmission, and based on a disease specific serial interval. We show that Chikungunya and Zika have similar transmission potential in the same territories (transmissibility ratio between Zika and Chikungunya of 1.04 [95% credible interval: 0.97; 1.13]), but that detection and reporting rates were different (around 19% for Zika and 40% for Chikungunya). Temperature variations between 22{degrees}C and 29{degrees}C did not alter transmission, but increased precipitation showed a dual effect, first reducing transmission after a two-week delay, then increasing it around five weeks later. The present study provides valuable information for risk assessment and introduces a modelling framework for the comparative analysis of arboviral infections that can be extended to other viruses and territories.

Epidemiology↗