Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-8bbf57454-kkbsd Total loading time: 0.517 Render date: 2022-01-24T14:31:48.967Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Birth weight and adult earnings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2021

Mark J. Lambiris*
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Mia M. Blakstad
Affiliation:
Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Nandita Perumal
Affiliation:
Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Goodarz Danaei
Affiliation:
Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Department of Epidemiology, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Lilia Bliznashka
Affiliation:
Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
Günther Fink
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
Christopher R. Sudfeld
Affiliation:
Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA Department of Nutrition, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
*
Address for correspondence: Mark J. Lambiris, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland. Email: mark.lambiris@swisstph.ch
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While substantial evidence has identified low birth weight (LBW; <2500 g) as a risk factor for early life morbidity, mortality and poor childhood development, relatively little is known on the links between birth weight and economic outcomes in adulthood. The objective of this study was to systematically review the economics (EconLit) and biomedical literature (Medline) and estimate the pooled association between birth weight and adult earnings. A total of 15 studies from mostly high-income countries were included. On average, each standard deviation increase in birth weight was associated with a 2.75% increase in annual earnings [(95% CI: 1.44 to 4.07); 9 estimates]. A negative, but not statistically significant, association was found between being born LBW and earnings, compared to individuals not born LBW [mean difference: −3.41% (95% CI: −7.55 to 0.73); 7 estimates]. No studies from low-income countries were identified and all studies were observational. Overall, birth weight was consistently associated with adult earnings, and therefore, interventions that improve birth weight may provide beneficial effects on adult economic outcomes.

Type
Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press in association with International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease

Introduction

According to the latest global estimates, 18 million infants were born low birth weight (LBW; <2500 g) globally in 2010. Reference Lee, Katz and Blencowe1 The primary causes of LBW are prematurity and intrauterine growth restriction. Reference Kramer2 LBW infants are at increased risk of infant morbidity and mortality Reference Lee, Kozuki and Cousens3 and are also more likely to experience linear growth faltering during childhood. Reference Christian, Lee and Donahue Angel4 There is also a growing literature indicating that LBW infants may be at greater risk for suboptimal neurodevelopmental outcomes during childhood, Reference Murray, Fernandes, Fazel, Kennedy, Villar and Stein5,Reference Sania, Sudfeld and Danaei6 with potentially important implications across the life course.

The developmental origin of health and disease theory suggests that in utero exposures can increase the risk of adverse health outcomes later in life and across generations. Original studies showed that restricted fetal development, as measured by LBW, was associated with increased risk of adult hypertension, insulin resistance, obesity and other non-communicable diseases. Reference Barouki, Gluckman, Grandjean, Hanson and Heindel7 Following Barker’s original work, Reference Barker8,Reference Barker and Osmond9 positive associations between early life growth restriction and adult risk of chronic disease have been documented both in animal Reference Van Abeelen, Veenendaal and Painter10 and human studies, Reference Arima, Nishiyama, Izumiya, Kaikita, Hokimoto and Tsujita11 even though disease trajectories among humans seem to be partially conditioned by early life catch-up growth. Reference Martin, Connelly, Bland and Reilly12 However, more recent evidence suggests wider implications for immunological, mental health and reproductive outcomes. Reference Jazwiec and Sloboda13,Reference Nemoto and Kakinuma14 Fetal development may also affect human capital outcomes across the life course. Reference Bilgin, Mendonca and Wolke15

Much less is known regarding the long-term implications of LBW on adult incomes or earnings as the primary measures of socio-economic well-being. In this paper, we present the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of the economics and the biomedical literature designed to investigate this empirical association. Characterising the long-run human capital effects of adverse birth outcomes, in addition to health-related outcomes, is important to estimate the broader societal impact of adverse birth outcomes and the potential benefits of interventions and policies to support vulnerable infants.

Methods

Search strategy

We conducted a systematic review and analysis of published literature following PRISMA guidelines. We searched both the economics literature, which was indexed through the EconLit search platform, and the biomedical literature via Pubmed (Medline) for wage and earnings outcomes using the following search: (birthweight OR ‘birth weight’) AND (wage OR earnings OR education OR schooling OR ‘human capital’ OR ‘labor force’ OR unemployment). We included broader labour market measures in the outcome-level search terms since these may also include secondary analyses relevant to earnings. We reviewed all publications and working papers from database conception to 28th February 2019 with data on birth weight and the outcome measures of wages and earnings at any age. Only studies using individual-level data and written in English were included.

Study selection

Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and then reviewed full texts of selected studies to assess eligibility. Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus. The inclusion criteria were that the studies used individual-level data; the exposure was birth weight either defined as a continuous variable or categorically [e.g. LBW or extremely low birth weight (ELBW), <1000 g]; the outcome was one related to the seven outcomes defined in our search; the outcome was measured at age 10 or above; and when the outcome was measured on a wide range of ages and the upper bound of the range is above 10. The exclusion criteria were outcomes where parental investment in their children or adult health outcomes; birth weight was measured as a categorical variable with more than two weight brackets; the outcomes were behavioural measures or measures of mental health; and association estimates were unadjusted (bivariate correlation coefficients).

Data extraction

Two reviewers independently extracted data using a standardised data extraction form. The data collected from each study included study design, birth weight sample mean and standard deviation, birth weight definition (continuous or dichotomous LBW), outcome definition, outcome mean and standard deviation, age at which outcome was assessed, statistical model used to assess associations, confounders, number of observations, sample type (twins, siblings or singletons) and birth year of study participants.

If more than one relevant outcome, more than one birth weight measurement or more than one dataset were used in the same study, data were extracted separately for each. Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer.

Data standardisation

Some studies reported a continuous measure of birth weight exposure in grams, kilograms or ounces while others reported birth weight on the logarithmic scale. Studies which used log birth weight only reported standard deviations of birth weight in linear form. To ensure comparability of linear and logarithmic birth weight estimates, we derived an expression for the standard deviation of log birth weight.

We first calculated a first-order Taylor approximation of the logarithm of birth weight evaluated at the mean, and then calculated the variance and the standard deviation of the expression. The final expression (3) describes the standard deviation of the logarithm of birth weight as a function of mean birth weight and standard deviation of birth weight, which we estimated with their sample analogues, extracted from the set of included studies:

$${\rm{In}(\it X)\sim \rm In[\mu]+ {{1}\over{\mu}}(\it X-\mu)}$$
$${Var ({\rm In}(X))={{1}\over{\mu^2}}\sigma^2}$$
$${SD({\rm In}(X))={{1}\over{\mu}}\sigma}$$

For both linear and log birth weight estimates, we then multiplied the estimated coefficients with the standard deviation of the exposure variable used. The resulting scaled coefficients capture the average change in the outcome for one standard deviation increase in birth weight. To ensure log-transformed models yielded on average the same results as linear models, we ran a series of simulation models. The results (shown in Supplementary Appendix 1) suggest an almost perfect alignment between linear and log-linear models in our settings as long as the marginal effect of birth weight is constant.

Statistical analysis

The objective of the meta-analysis was to produce a quantitative estimate of the relationship of two birth weight exposures: (i) a standard deviation in birth weight or (ii) being born LBW, with the mean difference in annual earnings, the primary outcome. To calculate the pooled summary coefficient, we used the DerSimonian and Laird method with random effects. We report the Cochran’s Q P-value and the I2 statistic to quantify the fraction of total variation across studies attributable to heterogeneity.

Each analysis lists the individual studies, their country and the sample type (i.e., twins, siblings or singletons) since these might give rise to between-study heterogeneity. In addition, we stratified studies by continuous and LBW categorical exposure and recalculated the pooled summary associations for each subgroup, when there was substantial heterogeneity. Finally, we assessed publication bias by including the P-values for Egger’s test.

Results

Literature search

Fig. 1 presents the study selection cascade for earnings outcomes. A total of 150 potentially relevant records were identified via EconLit and Pubmed. The initial search also yielded a review of studies containing one relevant article which we added to the pool. Reference Prinz, Chernew, Cutler and Frakt16 After removing duplicates, we screened the 139 remaining titles and abstracts and identified 19 studies for full-text review. After a detailed full-text review, we included 15 studies in the final database.

Fig. 1. Study selection – earnings outcomes.

Study characteristics

The 15 studies with earnings outcome data were observational datasets from high-income countries apart from 1 observational study from China (middle-income). Some studies reported multiple effect estimates if they used different samples or reported analyses for birth weight defined on a continuous scale as well as categorically as LBW. We therefore refer to the number of effect estimates, rather than the number of studies hereafter. We present study-level information in Tables 1 and 2 for studies measuring birth weight as a continuous and binary variable, respectively. In addition, we qualitatively summarised two studies that reported on ELBW. There were a total of nine estimates based on continuous birth weight measures and seven based on LBW binary measures.

Table 1. Study information – annual earnings in studies where outcome is a continuous measure of birth weight

Table 2. Study information – annual earnings in studies where outcome is a low birth weight (LBW) binary variable

Annual earnings

Seven studies reported nine estimates on the relationship between birth weight and annual earnings. Reference Bharadwaj, Lundborg and Rooth17Reference Sandewall, Cesarini and Johannesson23 The pooled estimates indicated that each standard deviation increase in birth weight was associated with a 2.75% increase in annual earnings [(95% CI: 1.44% to 4.07%); 9 estimates; Fig. 2]. Seven out of nine estimates used twin sampling methods. Overall, there was low heterogeneity (I2 = 28%, Cochran’s Q P = 0.2).

Fig. 2. Meta-analysis of the association of one standard deviation increase in birth weight with annual earnings.

We performed four sensitivity analyses. First, Supplementary Figure S1 presents pooled estimates in twin studies (two non-twin estimates out of nine omitted); the findings were qualitatively the same and each standard deviation increase in birth weight among twins was associated with a 2.3% increase in annual earnings (95% CI: 1.1% to 3.4%). Second, we conducted a sensitivity analysis limited to studies in high-income countries and omitted the two estimates from studies conducted in China (Supplementary Figure S2); the pooled estimate remained similar (mean difference 2.4%; 95% CI: 1.3 to 3.4%). Third, we stratified studies by those using linear birth weight and log birth weight in Supplementary Figure S3. The magnitude of the association appeared slightly reduced for studies examining log birth weight (mean difference 1.8%; 95% CI: 0.9% to 2.8%) as compared to studies that examined linear birth weight (mean difference 5.6%; 95% CI: 0.3% to 8.3%); however, both indicated a statistically significant relationship between birth weight and annual earnings. Finally, we present the pooled association after removing the two studies that adjusted for education in Supplementary Figure S4; this did not affect our overall findings.

Six studies presented seven estimates on the relationship between being born LBW and annual earnings. Reference Beach and Saavedra24Reference Schwandt29 No statistically significant association was found between being born LBW and annual wages, although the pooled estimate was negative [mean difference: −3.41% (95% CI: −7.55% to 0.73%); 7 estimates; Fig. 3].

Fig. 3. Meta-analysis of the association of low birth weight (LBW) with annual earnings.

In addition to the continuous measures of birth weight and the LBW indicator, we identified two studies conducted in Canada that compared earnings outcomes between ELBW individuals (birth weight <1000 g) and individuals born above 2500 g. While they are not directly comparable to the commonly used LBW measures, the estimates are negative, as expected, and larger in magnitude. The first study found that being born ELBW was associated with a 25.3% significant reduction in annual earnings for males and a 6.5% non-significant reduction in annual earnings for females, Reference Goddeeris, Saigal, Boyle, Paneth, Streiner and Stoskopf30 while the second reported that ELBW individuals earned $17,210 less annually, than those born above 2500 g. Reference Dobson, Ferro, Boyle, Schmidt, Saigal and Van Lieshout31

Publication bias

We performed Egger’s test for each of the two analyses presented above. There was suggestive evidence of publication bias in the association between continuous birth weight and annual earnings, presented in Fig. 2 (Egger’s test P-value < 0.01), and no evidence for bias in the association of LBW and earnings, presented in Fig. 3 (Egger’s test P-value = 0.54). However, the number of studies per analysis was relatively low (i.e. below 10 effect estimates per meta-analysis), so these results should be treated with caution.

Discussion

In this study, we presented the results of a systematic review of the economics and biomedical literature on the long-term effects of birth weight on adult earnings. On average, pooled estimates indicated that each standard deviation (500 g) increase in birth weight was associated with 2.8% additional annual earnings. Further, LBW appeared to be negatively associated with annual earnings, but the results were not statistically significant. While the percentage increase in earnings per standard deviation of birth weight may seem small in magnitude, the estimates are economically meaningful. In a high-income setting like the USA, this implies that a one standard deviation decrease in birth weight (which corresponds to about ∼500 g) is associated with a loss of lifetime earnings of about USD 33,600, assuming a median base wage of USD 30,000 and 40 years of work.

Our findings are aligned with the literature to date highlighting the positive association between birth weight and measures of human capital in high-income settings. Reference Bilgin, Mendonca and Wolke15 Conceptually, there are multiple mechanisms that may link birth weight to adult earnings. There is a relatively large literature linking LBW with suboptimal brain development Reference Breslau32,Reference Lundequist, Bohm, Lagercrantz, Forssberg and Smedler33 through pathways related to reduced brain volume and deficits in neuron proliferation, synaptogenesis and myelination. Reference Prado and Dewey34,Reference de Kieviet, Zoetebier, van Elburg, Vermeulen and Oosterlaan35 Of note, a longitudinal birth cohort study conducted in the UK found LBW was associated with reduced cognitive ability in childhood, adolescence and persisted through adulthood. Reference Richards, Hardy, Kuh and Wadsworth36 Further, LBW has also been linked to lower educational attainment in a number of studies. Reference Bharadwaj, Lundborg and Rooth17,Reference Black, Devereux and Salvanes18,Reference Schwandt29,Reference Oreopoulos, Stabile, Walld and Roos37 In addition, mechanisms related to risk of disability may also be relevant, particularly for ELBW children, who have been found to be at greater risk for cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, blindness and deafness. Reference Goddeeris, Saigal, Boyle, Paneth, Streiner and Stoskopf30,Reference Dobson, Ferro, Boyle, Schmidt, Saigal and Van Lieshout31 While disabilities are associated with reduced earnings, they fall outside of the scope of this paper which focused on economic outcomes; however, the two studies included in our review that analysed ELBW found large wage reductions of up to 25%. Reference Goddeeris, Saigal, Boyle, Paneth, Streiner and Stoskopf30,Reference Dobson, Ferro, Boyle, Schmidt, Saigal and Van Lieshout31 Additional research, including mediation analyses, is needed to inform the mechanistic pathways that link birth weight to adult earnings.

Although, to the best of our knowledge, this is the largest review of evidence linking birth weight to earnings and later life human capital outcomes to date, our analysis has some limitations. First, our review yielded almost exclusively studies from high-income countries. Given that long-term follow-up data from birth cohorts in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are relatively scarce this is not surprising – it does however raise concerns regarding the external validity of these estimates. It is noteworthy, however, that there is a growing literature linking birth weight to cognitive function and schooling in LMICs. Reference Adair, Fall and Osmond38 Nevertheless, infants born with LBW are likely to obtain substantially more parental and governmental support in high than in low-income settings, and this could reduce the developmental gap. Therefore, differences in economic outcomes between lower and higher birth weight individuals may remain larger in low-income settings. Additional research is needed globally and among disadvantaged populations in high-income countries to explore these nuances.

One of the central challenges in estimating the effect of LBW and adverse pregnancy outcomes on later life outcomes is the inability to conduct randomised trials. Thus, all available estimates rely on observational data which are inherently prone to bias. The majority of published studies have examined the relationship of birth weight with human capital outcomes in twin populations; twins share genetic material and intrauterine conditions and are often raised in the same environment during childhood and adolescence which may minimise confounding due to environmental factors. Nevertheless, most of the reported studies do not distinguish between monozygotic and dizygotic twins meaning that within-twin pair differences in genetic factors might explain some of the variability in birth weight and in human capital outcomes. A notable example is sex. Most included studies pooled male and female observations to produce the association between birth weight and earnings, while a smaller number of studies analysed single-sex samples. Female children are born on average lower birth weight than male children. In addition, women tend to earn less than men due to differences in access to labour market opportunities or education. Treating men and women as a homogeneous sample could therefore bias estimated associations upwards, in addition to resulting in poorer model fit. While these are important considerations, all included studies except one addressed this concern by either explicitly including sex as a covariate or stratifying the sample by sex.

Family socio-economic factors in observational studies are another potential source of confounding in the association between birth weight and adult earnings. Poorer families may have poorer access to high-quality nutrition, maternal and perinatal healthcare, increasing the likelihood of LBW children. Their children may also lack the financial resources that their richer peers benefit from, during crucial developmental stages in early childhood, in addition to having fewer opportunities to enrol in high-quality educational programmes and poorer access to key networks that facilitate job hunting and higher earnings potential. All included studies except one addressed this confounding concern either via twin or sibling fixed effects (within family comparisons) or by explicitly including a measure of family status in their statistical model.

Although most studies controlled for measures reflecting the family or parental background of the child at birth, some studies also included educational attainment of the child in the main regression model, which may adjust out a key mediating pathway between birth weight and adult earnings. In theory, including education would likely result in a smaller association between birth weight and earnings. In our sample, however, the few studies that included education as a covariate yielded higher associations than the other studies, which may be due to cross-study differences in the populations studied. Regardless, the exclusion of studies that adjusted for education did not affect our overall findings.

Finally, there was little consensus regarding the best measure of birth weight in the pool of included studies. Most studies measuring birth weight on a continuous scale assumed a linear relationship between birth weight and earnings, while a few opted for the natural logarithm of birth weight. While we standardised all estimates and their standard errors to be comparable in interpretation, different assumptions underlie these two models. Using the natural logarithm of birth weight allows for some non-linearity in the association between birth weight and earnings and assumes that the association varies across the birth weight distribution. A non-linear association makes intuitive sense: we expect that improving perinatal outcomes for children born in the lower tail of the birth weight distribution will also improve their cognitive abilities and human capital substantially more than their peers of average birth weight. Although we find that the studies using log birth weight yield, on average, a smaller association than those using linear birth weight, it is difficult to determine the underlying reason for this difference; this may be due to differences between the sample populations across studies. Alternatively, since the models using logarithmic exposure give more weight to increases in birth weight in the lower tail of the distribution, it could also be that the association is smaller (relative to the linear exposure model) when evaluated at the mean, as we do in our standardisation procedure. It would therefore be highly beneficial for future studies to estimate both linear and non-linear models on the same dataset to be able to directly compare effect estimates to other studies.

Further, both linear and logarithmic birth weight models fail to capture the potentially non-linear relationship between birth weight and earnings. As previously discussed, ELBW children born in the lower tail of the distribution may have particularly large deficits in earnings. Further, there might be a point where additional weight at birth in the upper tail of the distribution is associated with poorer human capital outcomes or yields no additional benefit. In such a case, a model trying to compare the returns of birth weight to earnings between low and average birth weight children would bias associations downwards. For instance, fetal macrosomia (birth weight > 4000 g) is estimated to affect between 5% and 20% of newborns worldwide. Reference Henriksen39 Children with macrosomia may be at increased risk of metabolic disease, obesity and type II diabetes in later life, Reference Kc, Shakya and Zhang40 and some studies have reported a negative association between macrosomia and cognitive development scores. Reference Eide, Oyen, Skjaerven and Bjerkedal41,Reference Corbett, Drewett, Durham, Tymms and Wright42 Therefore, since cognitive ability is a key human capital pathway to earnings potential, earnings may decrease for adults who were born with macrosomia. While some evidence suggests that these negative associations may disappear after controlling for family-level confounders, Reference Kristensen, Susser, Irgens, Mehlum, Corbett and Bjerkedal43 further research is warranted considering the high prevalence of maternal obesity in some high-income countries which is a strong risk factor for macrosomia. Reference Ehrenberg, Mercer and Catalano44 To capture these heterogeneous associations along the birth weight distribution, non-linear or non-parametric statistical models should be used to explore the shape of the relationship between birth weight and human capital outcomes.

Overall, our meta-analysis indicates that birth weight is consistently associated with adult annual earnings. As a result, the potential returns to early life investments in interventions to improve birth weight may translate into a significant reductions in early cognitive deficits and a substantial increase in economic outcomes. To quantify the return on investment more precisely, further research needs to carefully consider study design, including key mediating pathways and confounding factors. In addition, relaxing the assumption of a linear association will be essential to uncover the populations most likely to benefit from interventions.

Acknowledgements

We thank Alice Aebischer, Flurin Börlin, Michael Kornel and Abdelradi Mohammed for their help with data extraction.

Financial support

This work was supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Grant number OPP1198520).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Supplementary materials

For supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040174421000404

Footnotes

Contributed equally as co-senior authors.

References

Lee, AC, Katz, J, Blencowe, H, et al. National and regional estimates of term and preterm babies born small for gestational age in 138 low-income and middle-income countries in 2010. Lancet Global Health. 2013; 1, e26e36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kramer, MS. Intrauterine growth and gestational duration determinants. Pediatrics. 1987; 80, 502511.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, AC, Kozuki, N, Cousens, S, et al. Estimates of burden and consequences of infants born small for gestational age in low and middle income countries with INTERGROWTH-21(st) standard: analysis of CHERG datasets. BMJ. 2017; 358, j3677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christian, P, Lee, SE, Donahue Angel, M, et al. Risk of childhood undernutrition related to small-for-gestational age and preterm birth in low- and middle-income countries. Int J Epidemiol. 2013; 42(5), 13401355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, E, Fernandes, M, Fazel, M, Kennedy, SH, Villar, J, Stein, A. Differential effect of intrauterine growth restriction on childhood neurodevelopment: a systematic review. BJOG. 2015; 122, 10621072.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sania, A, Sudfeld, CR, Danaei, G, et al. Early life risk factors of motor, cognitive and language development: a pooled analysis of studies from low/middle-income countries. BMJ Open. 2019; 9, e026449.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barouki, R, Gluckman, PD, Grandjean, P, Hanson, M, Heindel, JJ. Developmental origins of non-communicable disease: implications for research and public health. Environ Health. 2012; 11, 42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barker, DJP. The fetal and infant origins of adult disease, 1992. BMJ Books: London.Google Scholar
Barker, DJP, Osmond, C. Infant-mortality, childhood nutrition, and Ischemic-heart-disease in England and Wales. Lancet. 1986; 1, 10771081.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Abeelen, AF, Veenendaal, MV, Painter, RC, et al. The fetal origins of hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence from animal experiments of maternal undernutrition. J Hypertens. 2012; 30, 22552267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arima, Y, Nishiyama, K, Izumiya, Y, Kaikita, K, Hokimoto, S, Tsujita, K. Fetal origins of hypertension. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018; 1012, 4148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, A, Connelly, A, Bland, RM, Reilly, JJ. Health impact of catch-up growth in low-birth weight infants: systematic review, evidence appraisal, and meta-analysis. Matern Child Nutr. 2017; 13, e12297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jazwiec, PA, Sloboda, DM. Nutritional adversity, sex and reproduction: 30 years of DOHaD and what have we learned? J Endocrinol. 2019; 242, T51T68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nemoto, T, Kakinuma, Y. Involvement of noncoding RNAs in stress-related neuropsychiatric diseases caused by DOHaD theory: ncRNAs and DOHaD-induced neuropsychiatric diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018; 1012, 4959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bilgin, A, Mendonca, M, Wolke, D. Preterm birth/low birth weight and markers reflective of wealth in adulthood: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2018; 142,  e20173625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prinz, D, Chernew, M, Cutler, D, Frakt, A. Health and economic activity over the lifecycle: literature review. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers: 24865. 2018; doi: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24865.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bharadwaj, P, Lundborg, P, Rooth, D-O. Birth weight in the long run. J Hum Resour. 2018; 53, 189231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, SE, Devereux, PJ, Salvanes, KG. From the cradle to the labor market? The effect of birth weight on adult outcomes. Q J Econ. 2007; 122, 409439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, CJ, Fletcher, JM. Understanding heterogeneity in the effects of birth weight on adult cognition and wages. National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, NBER Working Papers: 20895. 2015; doi: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20895.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J, Wickrama, KAS. Maternal social status, early health capital, and young adults’ economic attainment: Early life course investigation . Soc Sci Res. 2017; 61, 266277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P, Mulvey, C, Martin, N. Birth weight and schooling and earnings: estimates from a sample of twins. Econ Lett. 2005; 86, 387392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenzweig, MR, Zhang, J. Economic growth, comparative advantage, and gender differences in schooling outcomes: evidence from the birthweight differences of Chinese twins. J Dev Econ. 2013; 104, 245260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandewall, O, Cesarini, D, Johannesson, M. The Co-twin methodology and returns to schooling--testing a critical assumption. Labour Economics. 2014; 26, 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beach, B, Saavedra, M. Mitigating the Effects of Low Birth Weight: Evidence from Randomly Assigned Adoptees. American Journal of Health Economics. 2015;1(3), 275296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrman, JR, Rosenzweig, MR. Returns to birthweight. Rev Econ Stat. 2004; 86, 586601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, J, Hyson, R. Is the impact of health shocks cushioned by socioeconomic status? The case of low birthweight. Am Econ Rev. 1999; 89, 245250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, RC, Schoeni, RF. The influence of early-life events on human capital, health status, and labor market outcomes over the life course(). B E J Econom Anal Policy. 2011; 11, 155.Google Scholar
Nakamuro, M, Uzuki, Y, Inui, T. The effects of birth weight: does fetal origin really matter for long-run outcomes? Econ Lett. 2013; 121, 5358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwandt, H. The lasting legacy of seasonal influenza: in-utero exposure and labor market outcomes. CEPR Discussion Papers, CEPR Discussion Papers: 12563. 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddeeris, JH, Saigal, S, Boyle, MH, Paneth, N, Streiner, DL, Stoskopf, B. Economic outcomes in young adulthood for extremely low birth weight survivors. Pediatrics. 2010; 126, e1102e1108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dobson, KG, Ferro, MA, Boyle, MH, Schmidt, LA, Saigal, S, Van Lieshout, RJ. Socioeconomic attainment of extremely low birth weight survivors: the role of early cognition. Pediatrics. 2017; 139, e20162545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breslau, N. Psychiatric sequelae of low birth weight. Epidemiol Rev. 1995; 17, 96106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lundequist, A, Bohm, B, Lagercrantz, H, Forssberg, H, Smedler, AC. Cognitive outcome varies in adolescents born preterm, depending on gestational age, intrauterine growth and neonatal complications. Acta Paediatr. 2015; 104, 292299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prado, EL, Dewey, KG. Nutrition and brain development in early life. Nutr Rev. 2014; 72, 267284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Kieviet, JF, Zoetebier, L, van Elburg, RM, Vermeulen, RJ, Oosterlaan, J. Brain development of very preterm and very low-birthweight children in childhood and adolescence: a meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012; 54, 313323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, M, Hardy, R, Kuh, D, Wadsworth, ME. Birth weight and cognitive function in the British 1946 birth cohort: longitudinal population based study. BMJ. 2001; 322, 199203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oreopoulos, P, Stabile, M, Walld, R, Roos, L. Short, Medium, and Long Term Consequences of Poor Infant Health: An Analysis using Siblings and Twins. 2006. 11998: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., NBER Working Papers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adair, LS, Fall, CH, Osmond, C, et al. Associations of linear growth and relative weight gain during early life with adult health and human capital in countries of low and middle income: findings from five birth cohort studies. Lancet. 2013; 382, 525534.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henriksen, T. The macrosomic fetus: a challenge in current obstetrics. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008; 87, 134145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kc, K, Shakya, S, Zhang, H. Gestational diabetes mellitus and macrosomia: a literature review. Ann Nutr Metab. 2015; 66(Suppl 2), 1420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eide, MG, Oyen, N, Skjaerven, R, Bjerkedal, T. Associations of birth size, gestational age, and adult size with intellectual performance: evidence from a cohort of Norwegian men. Pediatr Res. 2007; 62, 636642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbett, SS, Drewett, RF, Durham, M, Tymms, P, Wright, CM. The relationship between birthweight, weight gain in infancy, and educational attainment in childhood. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2007; 21, 5764.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, P, Susser, E, Irgens, LM, Mehlum, IS, Corbett, K, Bjerkedal, T. The association of high birth weight with intelligence in young adulthood: a cohort study of male siblings. Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 180, 876884.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ehrenberg, HM, Mercer, BM, Catalano, PM. The influence of obesity and diabetes on the prevalence of macrosomia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191, 964968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Study selection – earnings outcomes.

Figure 1

Table 1. Study information – annual earnings in studies where outcome is a continuous measure of birth weight

Figure 2

Table 2. Study information – annual earnings in studies where outcome is a low birth weight (LBW) binary variable

Figure 3

Fig. 2. Meta-analysis of the association of one standard deviation increase in birth weight with annual earnings.

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Meta-analysis of the association of low birth weight (LBW) with annual earnings.

Supplementary material: File

Lambiris et al. supplementary material

Lambiris et al. supplementary material 1

Download Lambiris et al. supplementary material(File)
File 65 KB
Supplementary material: File

Lambiris et al. supplementary material

Lambiris et al. supplementary material 2

Download Lambiris et al. supplementary material(File)
File 915 KB
You have Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Birth weight and adult earnings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Birth weight and adult earnings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Birth weight and adult earnings: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *