Skip main navigation
We use cookies to give you a better experience, if that’s ok you can close this message and carry on browsing. For more info read our cookies policy.
We use cookies to give you a better experience. Carry on browsing if you're happy with this, or read our cookies policy for more information.

Skip to 0 minutes and 13 secondsDAISY PAYLING: Can you tell me a bit about Whitehall Study and when and why it was set up?

Skip to 0 minutes and 17 secondsCHRIS OLVER: It was a health survey, which was conducted on male middle aged civil servants from 1967 to 1970, looking for signs of cardiovascular disease and other risk factors. The reason it was set up was cardiovascular disease was seen as the major killer of people within that age group, not just in the UK, but across the globe.

Skip to 0 minutes and 48 secondsDAISY PAYLING: How did they conduct the study?

Skip to 0 minutes and 50 secondsCHRIS OLVER: They conducted the study by inviting the participants to complete a self-questionnaire, which I have an example here, and also to undergo various medical tests, looking into blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and also echocardiograms and x-rays. The questionnaires were designed to pick up information about their cardiovascular history, but also included questions on their smoking habits, their former smoking habits if they were ex-smokers, and also their medical history. So what did they expect to find?

Skip to 1 minute and 37 secondsDAISY PAYLING: Well, the interesting thing about the civil service is that the employment grades are really clearly stratified. So they expected to find that the higher status jobs, which were presumed to have a high level of stress attached to them, would lead to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality. What they actually found was the direct opposite of that. So lower status jobs had a higher risk of heart disease. And more than that, they found a social gradient. So the lower you were in the hierarchy, the higher your risk of heart disease on a sliding scale.

Skip to 2 minutes and 14 secondsCHRIS OLVER: Oh, OK. Was it just heart disease?

Skip to 2 minutes and 17 secondsDAISY PAYLING: No, it was all major causes of deaths-- so strokes, renal disease, cancers, not just heart disease.

Skip to 2 minutes and 25 secondsCHRIS OLVER: How did it help our understanding of health inequalities?

Skip to 2 minutes and 29 secondsDAISY PAYLING: Well, it gave researches a more nuanced perspective on the relationship between socioeconomic status and health. So previously, researchers had thought about health inequalities as the understanding that the poorest people in society would have poor health outcomes, but that everybody else would be reasonably OK. But this understanding that there was a gradient took away the black and white thinking. And it meant that we needed to think about health inequalities as a sliding scale from poorest to richest in society. The study really highlighted the importance of the socioeconomic status of the participants and how socioeconomic status affected health outcomes. So by looking at the ways that individual risk factors--

Skip to 3 minutes and 24 secondsCHRIS OLVER: Such as smoking?

Skip to 3 minutes and 26 secondsDAISY PAYLING: Yeah-- affected health, it sort of partitioned those different risk factors groups and looked, for example, at smokers. And then even within groups of smokers, the social gradient still existed, which really highlighted the fact that even within those different behavioural choices that people make, it's the socioeconomic status that really is the major--

Skip to 3 minutes and 52 secondsCHRIS OLVER: It's completely fundamental, yeah.

Skip to 3 minutes and 54 secondsDAISY PAYLING: Yeah, the real key thing in determining people's health.

Skip to 3 minutes and 58 secondsCHRIS OLVER: So with the original study, of course, there was only one or two sort of questions which really brought out the gradient-- essentially that one question with the civil service grade. So in terms of the follow up study, it was necessary to redesign the study to focus more on the social and psychological aspects underlying the gradient.

Skip to 4 minutes and 25 secondsDAISY PAYLING: Yeah. So because Whitehall 1 showed this, the existence of this gradient, and that wasn't what they were expected to find, then Whitehall 2, which was the follow up study, which started in the 1980s, really wanted to investigate the social gradient further, and so asked a lot more questions about--

Skip to 4 minutes and 45 secondsCHRIS OLVER: And it's still going on today.

Skip to 4 minutes and 46 secondsDAISY PAYLING: It is still going on today, yes.

Identifying health inequalities: the Whitehall study

In this video Archivist Chris Olver and Research Fellow Daisy Payling discuss the Whitehall Study. They explain what it was, why it was significant and the impact it had on future health studies.

Do you feel socio-economic status still plays a role in health outcomes in your society, or has this been appropriately addressed through health interventions?

Share this video:

This video is from the free online course:

A History of Public Health in Post-War Britain

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

Contact FutureLearn for Support