Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2/2014

01-04-2014 | Original Research Article

That’s What Friends Are For: Adolescent Peer Social Status, Health-Related Quality of Life and Healthcare Costs

Authors: Marlon P. Mundt, Larissa I. Zakletskaia

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Social connections at all stages of life are essential for physical and mental well-being. Of particular importance are social relationships during adolescence that shape adult health behaviors and health outcomes.

Objective

The aim of this study was to estimate the association between adolescent peer status in school and later-life quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and healthcare costs.

Methods

This study used social network and health outcomes data from Wave I (ages 12–18 years) and Wave III (ages 18–24 years) of the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (n = 10,578) to compare QALYs and healthcare costs (in 2012 US$) by adolescent peer status in US schools. Generalized linear models controlled for school fixed effects, individual and family characteristics, and US census block neighborhood effects. Non-parametric bootstrapping accounted for residual skewness in QALYs and healthcare costs. Net monetary benefit (NMB) was calculated by converting adjusted 5-year QALYs into US$ values and subtracting 5-year healthcare costs. NMB was then compared across quintiles of adolescent peer status in school at Wave I.

Results

Results obtained from non-parametric bootstrapping indicate that adolescents with higher peer status in school experience significantly better health and lower healthcare costs over the next 5 years. At US$50,000 per QALY, adolescents with 8 or more friends achieved NMB of US$214,300 (95 % CI 212,800–215,800) over a 5-year span, in comparison to adolescents with 0–1 friends, who attained US$209,900 (95 % CI 207,900–211,700) NMB. This difference translates into approximately US$4,440 (95 % CI 2,036–6,825) per socially disengaged adolescent in additional health costs and/or reduced QALYs over 5 years.

Conclusion

The study calls for randomized controlled trials targeting adolescent peer group structures in schools as a means to promote better health and lower healthcare costs in adulthood.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
De Silva MJ, McKenzie K, Harpham T, Huttly SR. Social capital and mental illness: a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59(8):619–27.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
2.
Wolff FC. Well-being of elderly people living in nursing homes: the benefits of making friends. Kyklos. 2013;66(1):153–71.CrossRef
3.
4.
5.
Almquist Y. Peer status in school and adult disease risk: a 30-year follow-up study of disease-specific morbidity in a Stockholm cohort. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(12):1028–34.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Caspi A, Harrington H, Moffitt TE, Milne BJ, Poulton R. Socially isolated children 20 years later: risk of cardiovascular disease. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(8):805–11.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Ostberg V, Modin B. Status relations in school and their relevance for health in a life course perspective: findings from the Aberdeen children of the 1950s cohort study. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66(4):835–48.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Östberg V. Children in classrooms: peer status, status distribution and mental well-being. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(1):17–29.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Viner RM, Ozer EM, Denny S, Marmot M, Resnick M, Fatusi A, et al. Adolescence and the social determinants of health. Lancet. 2012;379(9826):1641–52.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Moody J, Brynildsen WD, Osgood DW, Feinberg ME, Gest S. Popularity trajectories and substance use in early adolescence. Soc Netw. 2011;33(2):101–12.CrossRef
11.
Kiesner J. Depressive symptoms in early adolescence: their relations with classroom problem behavior and peer status. J Res Adolesc. 2002;12(4):463–78.CrossRef
12.
Almquist Y. Social isolation in the classroom and adult health: a longitudinal study of a 1953 cohort. Adv Life Course Res. 2011;16(1):1–12.CrossRef
13.
Cillessen AHN, Rose AJ. Understanding popularity in the peer system. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005;14(2):102–5.CrossRef
14.
Morgan A, Haglund BJ. Social capital does matter for adolescent health: evidence from the English HBSC study. Health Promot Int. 2009;24(4):363–72.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Torsheim T, Wold B. School-related stress, school support, and somatic complaints: a general population study. J Adolesc Res. 2001;16(3):293–303.CrossRef
16.
Aslund C, Starrin B, Nilsson KW. Social capital in relation to depression, musculoskeletal pain, and psychosomatic symptoms: a cross-sectional study of a large population-based cohort of Swedish adolescents. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:715.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
17.
Borges CM, Campos AC, Vargas AD, Ferreira EF, Kawachi I. Social capital and self-rated health among adolescents in Brazil: an exploratory study. BMC Res Notes. 2010;3:338.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
18.
Berra S, Tebe C, Erhart M, Ravens-Sieberer U, Auquier P, Detmar S, et al. Correlates of use of health care services by children and adolescents from 11 European countries. Med Care. 2009;47(2):161–7.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Bernal P, Estroff DB, Aboudarham JF, Murphy M, Keller A, Jellinek MS. Psychosocial morbidity: the economic burden in a pediatric health maintenance organization sample. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154(3):261–6.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Neill SJ. Containing acute childhood illness within family life: a substantive grounded theory. J Child Health Care. 2010;14(4):327–44.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Nolan SA, Flynn C, Garber J. Prospective relations between rejection and depression in young adolescents. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(4):745–55.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Layous K, Nelson SK, Oberle E, Schonert-Reichl KA, Lyubomirsky S. Kindness counts: prompting prosocial behavior in preadolescents boosts peer acceptance and well-being. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51380.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
Uchino BN. Social support and health: a review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. J Behav Med. 2006;29(4):377–87.PubMedCrossRef
25.
26.
Adams RE, Santo JB, Bukowski WM. The presence of a best friend buffers the effects of negative experiences. Dev Psychol. 2011;47(6):1786–91.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Garber J. Depression in children and adolescents: linking risk research and prevention. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(6):S104–25.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Witvliet M, Brendgen M, van Lier PAC, Koot HM, Vitaro F. Early adolescent depressive symptoms: prediction from clique isolation, loneliness, and perceived social acceptance. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2010;38(8):1045–56.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
29.
Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1986.
30.
Schulenberg J, Wadsworth KN, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Johnston LD. Adolescent risk factors for binge drinking during the transition to young adulthood: variable- and pattern-centered approaches to change. Dev Psychol. 1996;32(4):659–74.CrossRef
31.
Rimal RN. Closing the knowledge-behavior gap in health promotion: the mediating role of self-efficacy. Health Commun. 2000;12(3):219–37.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Haegerich TM, Tolan PH. Core competencies and the prevention of adolescent substance use. In: Guerra NG, Bradshaw CP, editors. Core competencies to prevent problem behaviors and promote positive youth development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008. p. 47–60.
33.
Karatzias A, Power KG, Swanson V. Predicting use and maintenance of use of substances in Scottish adolescents. J Youth Adolesc. 2001;30(4):465–84.CrossRef
34.
Marmot MG, Shipley MJ, Rose G. Inequalities in death: specific explanations of a general pattern? Lancet. 1984;1(8384):1003–6.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Eisenberger NI, Taylor SE, Gable SL, Hilmert CJ, Lieberman MD. Neural pathways link social support to attenuated neuroendocrine stress responses. Neuroimage. 2007;35(4):1601–12.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
36.
Hennessy MB, Kaiser S, Sachser N. Social buffering of the stress response: diversity, mechanisms, and functions. Front Neuroendocrinol. 2009;30(4):470–82.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Seeman TE, McEwen BS. Impact of social environment characteristics on neuroendocrine regulation. Psychosom Med. 1996;58(5):459–71.PubMed
38.
Kyrou I, Tsigos C. Stress hormones: physiological stress and regulation of metabolism. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2009;9(6):787–93.PubMedCrossRef
39.
McEwen BS, Seeman T. Protective and damaging effects of mediators of stress: elaborating and testing the concepts of allostasis and allostatic load. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896:30–47.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Needham BL, Fernandez JR, Lin J, Epel ES, Blackburn EH. Socioeconomic status and cell aging in children. Soc Sci Med. 2012;74(12):1948–51.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making. 1998;18(2):S68–80.
42.
43.
Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
44.
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC. Cost effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.
45.
Hjelmgren J, Berggren F, Andersson F. Health economic guidelines: similarities, differences and some implications. Value Health. 2001;4(3):225–50.
46.
Haley SM, Mchorney CA, Ware JE. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10):1. Unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(6):671–84.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Sullivan PW, Ghushchyan V. Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Decis Making. 2006;26(4):410–20.
48.
Sullivan PW, Lawrence WF, Ghushchyan V. A national catalog of preference-based scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Med Care. 2005;43(7):736–49.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ. US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med Care. 2005;43(3):203–20.PubMedCrossRef
50.
51.
Fletcher J, Wolfe BL. Increasing our understanding of the health-income gradient in children. Cambridge (MA): National Bureau of Economic Research; 2012.
52.
Jena AB, Philipson TJ. Cost-effectiveness analysis and innovation. J Health Econ. 2008;27(5):1224–36.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Davidson R, MacKinnon JG. Estimation and inference in econometrics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.
54.
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman and Hall; 1993.CrossRef
55.
Conti G, Heckman J. The developmental approach to child and adult health. IZA discussion paper no. 7060 (December 2012).
56.
Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol Bull. 1995;117(3):497–529.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Farmer TW, Xie H. Aggression and school social dynamics: the good, the bad, and the ordinary. J Sch Psychol. 2007;45(5):461–78.CrossRef
58.
Farmer TW, Lines MM, Hamm JV. Revealing the invisible hand: the role of teachers in children’s peer experiences. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2011;32(5):247–56.
59.
60.
Roseth CJ, Johnson DW, Johnson RT. Promoting early adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: the effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychol Bull. 2008;134(2):223–46.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Ratcliffe J, Couzner L, Flynn T, Sawyer M, Stevens K, Brazier J, et al. Valuing Child Health Utility 9D health states with a young adolescent sample: a feasibility study to compare best-worst scaling discrete-choice experiment, standard gamble and time trade-off methods. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2011;9(1):15–27.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Metadata
Title
That’s What Friends Are For: Adolescent Peer Social Status, Health-Related Quality of Life and Healthcare Costs
Authors
Marlon P. Mundt
Larissa I. Zakletskaia
Publication date
01-04-2014
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-014-0084-y

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 2/2014 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Firm- and Drug-Specific Patterns of Generic Drug Payments by US Medicaid Programs: 1991–2008

Current Opinion

Managing Healthcare Budgets in Times of Austerity: The Role of Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis

Original Research Article

Cost-Utility Analysis Comparing Heavy-Weight and Light-Weight Mesh in Laparoscopic Surgery for Unilateral Inguinal Hernias

Original Research Article

Variation in the Spillover Effects of Illness on Parents, Spouses, and Children of the Chronically Ill

Systematic Review

Systematic Assessment of Decision-Analytic Models for Chronic Myeloid Leukemia

Original Research Article

Economic Evaluation of Using a Genetic Test to Direct Breast Cancer Chemoprevention in White Women with a Previous Breast Biopsy