ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2026
Comparative social costs of six early years disadvantages: a birth cohort microsimulation study.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPolicymakers lack comparative information about the social costs of specific early disadvantages. We compared six policy-relevant childhood (0-5 years) disadvantages and their diverse social costs over 17 years for the UK and Bradford (a multi-ethnic district of about 550 000 in the northeast of England with high levels of deprivation).
methodsUsing a microsimulation model, we compared the harms to well-being (proxied by parent-reported emotional problems), health and educational attainment and government spending (such as inpatient NHS costs) up to age 17 of the following: having a teenage mother, preterm birth, low birthweight-for-gestational-age, low height-for-age-and-sex (age 5), disability (age 5) and cognitive delay (age 5). We modelled a UK birth cohort born in 2000 and a Bradford cohort born in 2019 based on local prevalence data, uprated to 2023 prices and discounted at 3.5%.
resultsDisability imposed the highest per-child cost, with a well-being loss of 7.2 WELLBYs (CI 6.1 to 8.2; monetised value £89 k) and public cost £64 k (CI £37 k-£91 k) per child by age 17. Cognitive delay had a smaller per-child loss of 3.8 WELLBYs (3.2-4.5), but the largest population-level loss was in both the UK and Bradford at 728K WELLBYs (600 K-856K; monetised value £9,044 m) and £5,588 m (£1,872-£9,303) public cost per cohort of 679 000 children born in the UK. Monetised well-being loss is almost always higher than public cost and sometimes more than twice as high.
conclusionsCognitive delay at 5 years of age imposed larger total social costs than the other early disadvantages. For an individual child, however, well-being loss was most affected by disability or having a teenage mother.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.