House value as an indicator of cumulative wealth is strongly related to morbidity and mortality risk in older people: a census-based cross-sectional and longitudinal study

Background: There has been relatively little research into health inequalities in older populations. This may be partly explained by the difficulty in identifying appropriate indicators of socio-economic status for older people. Ideally, indicators of socio-economic status to be used in studies of health inequalities in older populations should incorporate some measure of life-time socio-economic standing, and house value may fill this role. This study examined whether an indicator of accumulated wealth based on a combination of housing tenure and house value was a strong predictor of ill-health in older populations.
Methods: A total of 191 848 people aged =65 years and not living in communal establishments were identified from the 2001 Northern Ireland Census and followed for 5 years. Self-reported health and mortality risk by housing tenure/house value groupings were examined while controlling for a range of other demographic and socio-economic characteristics.
Results: Housing tenure/house value was highly correlated with other indicators of socio-economic status. Public-sector renters had worse self-reported health and higher mortality rates than owner occupiers but significant gradients were also found between those living in the highest-and lowest-valued owner-occupier properties. The relationship between housing tenure and value was unchanged by adjustment for indicators of social support and quality of the physical environment. Adjustment for limiting long-term illness and self-reported health at baseline narrowed but did not eliminate the health gains associated with living in more expensive housing.
Conclusions: House value of residence is an accessible and powerful indicator of accumulated wealth that is highly correlated with current health status and predictive of future mortality risk in older populations.

Accumulating research: a systematic account of how cumulative meta-analyses would have provided knowledge, improved health, reduced harm and saved resources

BACKGROUND: "Cumulative meta-analysis" describes a statistical procedure to calculate, retrospectively, summary estimates from the results of similar trials every time the results of a further trial in the series had become available. In the early 1990 s, comparisons of cumulative meta-analyses of treatments for myocardial infarction with advice promulgated through medical textbooks showed that research had continued long after robust estimates of treatment effects had accumulated, and that medical textbooks had overlooked strong, existing evidence from trials. Cumulative meta-analyses have subsequently been used to assess what could have been known had new studies been informed by systematic reviews of relevant existing evidence and how waste might have been reduced.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used a systematic approach to identify and summarise the findings of cumulative meta-analyses of studies of the effects of clinical interventions, published from 1992 to 2012. Searches were done of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register and Science Citation Index. A total of 50 eligible reports were identified, including more than 1,500 cumulative meta-analyses. A variety of themes are illustrated with specific examples. The studies showed that initially positive results became null or negative in meta-analyses as more trials were done; that early null or negative results were over-turned; that stable results (beneficial, harmful and neutral) would have been seen had a meta-analysis been done before the new trial; and that additional trials had been much too small to resolve the remaining uncertainties.

CONCLUSIONS: This large, unique collection of cumulative meta-analyses highlights how a review of the existing evidence might have helped researchers, practitioners, patients and funders make more informed decisions and choices about new trials over decades of research. This would have led to earlier uptake of effective interventions in practice, less exposure of trial participants to less effective treatments, and reduced waste resulting from unjustified research.