Table 2 Results of studies testing the association between parental occupational class and leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) in adults

-Johnson (2011) [20]

Correlation and regression coefficients for a 6-point LTPA score and parental occupation (RGSC 1951: I, II, IIIN, IIIM, IV, V) (per unit change from high to low occupational class in regression model).

r = −0.06 (+, p = 0.05)

None

-UK; Lothian Birth Cohort 1936

β = −0.01 (ns)

Education, own occupational class, other childhood SEP, IQ & more

-1091; 70+ Yrs.

-Lawlor (2004) [21]

Prevalence of physical inactivity in six parental occupational groups (RGSC 1980: I, II, IIIN, IIIM, IV, V) and odds of physical inactivity per unit increase from high to low occupational class.

I-IV = −11.4 % {−13.6; −6.4} (+)

None

-UK; British Women’s Heart & Health Study (BWHHS)

-3444^♀; 60–79 years.

OR = 1.17 {1.08; 1.26} (+)

Age

OR = 1.15 {1.06; 1.25} (+)

Age, own occupational class

-Hillsdon (2008) [22]

Prevalence of manual parental occupational class (RGSC 1980) in four groups of physical activity hours/week.

% manual occupations:

None

-UK; BWHHS

≥3–0 h/week. = −7.4 %

-4103^♀; 60–79 years.

{−6.1; −8.6} (+, p < 0.001)

-Watt (2009) [23]

Percentage difference in low exercise between manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations (RGSC 1980).

NM-M = −6.7 % {−2.5; −10.9} (+, p < 0.01)

None

-UK; BWHHS

-3523^♀; 60–79 years.

-Ramsay (2009) [24]

Prevalence of physical inactivity in manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations (RGSC 1980).

NM-M = −48 % (+, p = 0.05)

None

-UK; British Regional Heart Study (BRHS)

-5188^♂; 52–73 years.

-Wannamethee (1996) [25]

Prevalence of physical activity in manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations (RGSC 1980).

NM-M = 8 % (+, p < 0.0001)

None

-UK; BRHS

NM-M = 2.4 % (ns)

Age, own occupational class

-5516^♂; 40–59 years.

-Stringhini (2013) [26]

Odds of physical inactivity in the lowest compared to the highest tertile of parental occupation (RGSC 1980).

OR = 1.37 {1.14; 1.65} (+, p < 0.05)

Age, sex, ethnicity, CHD, stroke, cancer, hypertension, family history of diabetes

-UK; Whitehall II (WHII) Study

-6387; 40–59 years.

-Heraclides (2008) [27]

Prevalence of physical inactivity in manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations (RGSC 1980).

NM-M:

None

-UK; WHII Study

♂ = 1.9 % (ns)

-4598; 44–69 years.

♀ = 1.3 % (ns)

sd

-Brunner (1999) [28]

Prevalence of physical inactivity in four parental occupational groups (RGSC 1980: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V).

I-IV (♂) = −4.8 % (+, p = 0.01)

Age

-UK; WHII Study

I-IV (♀) = −7.9 % (+, p = 0.02)

-6980; 35–55 years.

I-IV (♂) = −2.6 % (ns)

Age, own occupational class

I-IV (♀) = −2.9 % (ns)

-Blane (1996) [29]

Prevalence and regression coefficients for mean exercise hours/week. by four parental occupational groups (RGSC 1966: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V).

I/II-IV/V = 0.7 h/week. {SE: I/II =0.13; IV/V =0.16}

Age

-UK; West of Scotland Collaborative Study

-5646^♂; 35–64 years.

β = −0.16 {−0.32; 0.01} (ns)

Age

-Hart (1998) [30]

Prevalence of exercise hours/week. in four groups of parental and own occupations (RGSC 1966: 1. stable non-manual 2. moved up 3. moved down 4. stable manual).

1–4 = 0.5 h/week. (+, p = 0.002)

Age

-UK; West of Scotland Collaborative Study

-5567^♂; 35–64 years.

-Popham (2010) [31]

Prevalence of sport & exercise in four parental occupational groups (RGSC: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V).

I/II-IV/V = 18.6 % {17.7; 19.6} (+)

Age, sex

-UK; 2003 Scottish Health Survey

-2770; 35–54 years.

-Hart (2008) [32]

Prevalence of no exercise in manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations (RGSC 1966) and odds of no exercise per unit increase (1–6) from low to high parental occupational class.

NM-M:

None

-UK; Mid span Family Study

♂ = 3.7 % (ns)

-2338; 30–59 years.

♀ = −3.0 % (ns)

Odds Ratios:

Age

♂ = 1.03 (0.91; 1.16) (ns)

♀ = 1.09 (0.98; 1.21) (ns)

-Silverwood (2012) [33]

Prevalence of LTPA (low; gardening; sport & leisure), walking and cycling during work & for pleasure (high, low) in four parental occupational groups (RGSC 1970: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V).

I/II-IV/V: LTPA (sports & leisure):

None

-UK; MRC National Survey of Health and Development (NSHD)

♂ = 12.2 % (+, p < 0.001)

♀ = 17.9 % (+, p < 0.001)

-> 3300; 31–53 years.

I/II-IV/V: Walking (high):

♂ = −17.6 % (−, p < 0.001)

♀ = −6.6 % (−, p = 0.002)

-Kuh & Cooper (1992) [34]

Prevalence of most active in sports & recreational activities in four parental occupational groups (RGSC 1970: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V).

I/II-IV/V:

None

-UK; MRC NSHD

♂ = 9.1 % (ns)

-2977; 36 years.

♀ = 21.4 % (+, p < 0.001)

-Pinto Pereira (2014) [35]

Odds of low LTPA per unit increase from high to low parental occupational class (RGSC 1951: I/II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V).

Odds Ratios:

None

-UK; National Child Development Study 1958 (NCDS)

Age 33 = 1.12 {1.07; 1.16} (+)

-12,776 had ≥ one measure of LTPA; 33, 42, 50 year.

Age 42 = 1.16 {1.11; 1.20} (+)

Age 50 = 1.23 {1.17; 1.29} (+)

Age 33 = 1.06 {1.01; 1.11} (+)

Sex

Age 42 = 1.10 {1.05; 1.15} (+)

Age 50 = 1.13 {1.07; 1.19} (+)

Age 33 = 1.01 {0.97; 1.06} (ns)

Sex, parental education, aptitude, household amenities, cognition, lifestyle factors age 16, & more

Age 42 = 1.05 {1.002; 1.10} (+)

Age 50 = 1.09 {1.03; 1.15} (+)

Age 33 = 1.00 (0.95; 1.05) (ns)

As above plus own education, own social class, BMI, mental health, number of children in the household, limiting illness

Age 42 = 1.04 (0.99; 1.09) (ns)

Age 50 = 1.07 (1.01; 1.13) (+)

-Cheng & Furnham (2013) [36]

Correlation between an exercise score (1–6) and parental occupation (RGSC 1951: I, II, IIINM, IIIM, IV, V) with higher scores for higher occupational classes.

r = −0.020 (ns)

None

-UK; (NCDS)

-5921; 50 year.

-Juneau (2014) [37]

Correlation between LTPA (0–224 with 23 unique values) and parental occupation (RGSC: I, II, IIIN, IIIM, IV/V) with higher scores for lower occupational classes.

Age 0

None

-UK; 1970 British Cohort Study

♂: r = −0.080 (+, p < 0.001)

-9624; 34 years.

♀: r = −0.053 (+, p < 0.001)

Age 5

♂: r = −0.048 (+, p < 0.001)

♀: r = −0.077 (+, p < 0.001)

Age 10

♂: r = −0.086 (+, p < 0.001)

♀: r = −0.064 (+, p < 0.001)

Parameter estimates from structural equation model (zero-inflated Poisson models) for LTPA by parental occupation at birth and ages 5 and 10.

Parental occupation at birth:

Occupational physical activity, transport-related physical activity

Logistic portion of model:

♂ = 0.054 (ns)

(Results presented from an accumulation of risk with additive effects model (best fit), for results for ages 5 and 10 see paper.

♀ = 0.88 (p < 0.05)

Counts portion of model:

♂ = −0.049 (p < 0.05)

♀ = 0.050 (p < 0.05)

-Osler (2008) [38]

Odds of sedentary leisure activity in low compared to high parental occupational class.

OR = 1.10 {0.97; 1.26}

Age

-Denmark; 1953 Metropolit Birth Cohort

OR = 0.90 {0.78; 1.05}

Age, own education, own occupational class, divorce, cognition

-6292^♂; 51 year.

-Jørgensen (2013) [41]

Prevalence of low LTPA in five parental occupational groups (1. higher professional 2. lower professional/non-routine M 3. self-employed 4. skilled blue-collar 5. unskilled blue-collar)

1–5:

None

-Denmark; Danish Health Care Worker Cohort

♀ = −5.7 % (+, p = 0.011)

-1661^♀; 35.4 years (mean)

-Barnekow-Bergkvist (1998) [42]

Regression coefficients for LTPA MET hours/week. comparing non-manual to manual parental occupations.

β:

Own education, sport club member, two-hand lift, attitudes to soccer & handball

-Sweden

♂ = reported as ns

♀ = 0.18 (+)

-278; 34 years.

-Tammelin (2003) [43]

Odds of physical inactivity in parental occupational groups (1. skilled professional 2. skilled worker 3. unskilled worker 4. farmer) with skilled professional used as reference category.

Odds Ratios (4 vs. 1):

After-school sports

-Finland; 1966 North Finland Birth Cohort

♂ = 1.18 {0.94; 1.49} (ns)

-7794; 31 year.

♀ = 0.80 {0.63; 1.02} (ns)

-Makinen (2009) [44]

Odds of inactivity and moderate LTPA relative to high LTPA in father’s occupational groups (office employee, manual worker, self-employed, farmer) with office employee used a reference category.

ORs (farmer vs. office employee):

Age

-Finland; Health 2000 Survey

Inactivity (♂) = 1.69 (+)

-6262; 30+ Yrs.

Inactivity (♀) = 0.97 (ns)

Moderate LTPA (♂) = 1.68 (ns)

Moderate LTPA (♀) = 1.08 (ns)

-3905; 30+ Yrs.

Odds of inactivity and moderate LTPA relative to high LTPA in mother’s occupational groups (office employee, manual worker, self-employed, farmer) with office employee used a reference category.

ORs (farmer vs. office employee):

Age

Inactivity (♂) = 1.49 (ns)

Inactivity (♀) = 0.87 (ns)

Moderate LTPA (♂) = 1.99 (ns)

Moderate LTPA (♀) = 1.40 (+)

-Wichstrøm (2013) [45]

LTPA in five parental occupational groups (leader, high professional, low professional, manual, farmer/fisherman).

Reported as ‘unrelated to LTPA at any time point’ (ns)

None

-Norway

-> 2800; 25–32 years

-Peck (1994) [48]

Risk of no regular physical activity compared to the sample average in seven parental occupational groups (self-employed with employees, self-employed w/o employees, higher non-manual, assistant non-manual, skilled manual, unskilled manual, farmers).

Unskilled manual:

None

-Sweden

♂ = 1.24 (ns)

-13,695; 16–74 years.

♀ = 1.24 (ns)

Higher non-manual:

♂ = 0.73 (ns)

♀ = 0.73 (ns)

-Beunen (2004) [50]

Correlation and regression coefficients for sport, leisure-time and counts indices by parental occupation. Only leisure-time presented in paper.

Leisure-time:

Leisure-time:

Skeletal maturity, sum of skinfolds

-Belgium; Leuven Longitudinal Study of Flemish Boys

r = 0.13 (ns)

β at 16 years = 0.17 (+)

-166^♂; 40 year.

β at 18 years = 0.16 (+)

-Kamphuis (2013) [52]

Prevalence of inactive, little and moderately active in three parental occupational groups (1. professional 2. white collar 3. blue collar).

1–3:

None

-Netherlands; GLOBE Study

Inactive = 1.5 % (ns)

-4894^♂; 40–75 years.

Little active = −0.9 % (ns)

Moderately active = 2 % (ns)

-van de Mheen (1998) [53]

Odds of no LTPA and frequent LTPA by parental occupation (1. higher grade professional 2. lower grade professional/routine NM 3. self-employed 4. high/low skilled M 5. unskilled M) with higher grade professional used a reference category.

Odds Ratios (5 vs. 1):

Age, sex, religion, marriage, urbanisation

-Netherlands; Longitudinal Study on Socio-Economic Health Differences

No LTPA = 1.82 (+)

Frequent LTPA = 0.59 (+)

-13,854; 25–74 years.

No LTPA = 1.62 (ns)

As above plus own occupational class

Frequent LTPA = 0.68 (+ in ♀ only)

-Regidor (2004) [49]

Prevalence and odds of physical inactivity in four parental occupational groups (1. professional, manager, proprietor, clerical worker 2. self-employed farmer 3. skilled/unskilled manual worker 4. paid farm worker) with professional group used as reference category.

1–4 (♂) = −9.5 % (+, p = 0.043)

None

-Spain

1–4 (♀) = −7.9 % (+, p = 0.011)

-3658; 60+ Yrs.

Prevalence Ratios (4 vs. 1):

Age

♂ = 1.29 {1.07; 1.56} (+, ns: 3 vs. 1)

♀ = 1.17 {1.03; 1.32} (+, ns: 2 vs. 1)

♂ = 1.28 (1.05; 1.55) (+, ns: 3 vs. 1)

Age, own occupational class

♀ = 1.15 (1.01; 1.31) (+, ns: 2vs. 1)

Odds of physical inactivity in manual compared to non-manual parental occupations.

Manual vs. Non-manual:

Age

♂ = 1.04 (0.91; 1.18) (ns)

♀ = 1.14 (1.05; 1.24) (+)

♂ = 1.03 {0.90; 1.17} (ns)

Age, own occupational class

♀ = 1.12 {1.03; 1.23} (+)

-Bowen (2010) [56]

Prevalence of vigorous exercise in manual (M) and non-manual (NM) parental occupations.

NM-M = 6 % (+, p < 0.001)

None

-US; Health & Retirement Study, Study of Asset & Health Dynamics, & two other cohorts

-18,465; 51+ Yrs.