Do school grades matter for growing up? Testing the predictive validity of school performance for outcomes in emerging adulthood.

In putatively meritocratic societies, doing well in school is a pivotal precondition for accessing further and higher education, which, in turn, has a pervasive, long-term influence on adulthood development. Yet, doing well in school may also predict "real-life success" outside formal education settings and independent of the educational qualifications that a person attains. Such predictions are likely to become salient during emerging adulthood, a life period characterized by career explorations and social-emotional adjustment. Here, we tested the predictive validity of end-of-compulsory school grades at age 16 years in a U.K.-representative population cohort sample of up to N = 6,488, who were born between 1994 and 1996, for a broad range of occupational, financial, and social-emotional outcomes at age 23. End-of-compulsory school performance accounted for 1%-20% of the variance across occupational, financial, and social-emotional outcomes in emerging adulthood. Educational attainment attenuated these associations only slightly, with school grades at age 16 accounting for variance in emerging adulthood outcomes independent of later educational attainment. We found that school grades were equally predictive for boys' and girls' outcomes. In children from lower family socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, school grades were more predictive of their educational attainment, financial attitudes, and anxiety compared to higher SES children, with varying effect sizes (i.e., 0.3%-4.2%). Our findings suggest that school-leaving grades facilitate the successful transition from adolescence to adulthood, independent of educational attainment, and that they might enable children from low-SES families to compensate for some of their background disadvantages. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Barriers and facilitators to using aspirin for preventive therapy: a qualitative study exploring the views and experiences of people with Lynch syndrome and healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NG151) recommends considering daily aspirin for people with Lynch syndrome to reduce colorectal cancer risk. However, deciding whether to initiate aspirin could be a complex decision for patients and their healthcare providers, as both the potential benefits and harms need to be considered. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore the barriers and facilitators to using aspirin for preventive therapy. We recruited 15 people with Lynch syndrome, and 23 healthcare providers across multiple professions in primary, and specialist care (e.g. clinical genetics) in the United Kingdom. Interview schedules were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: There were three themes: 1) Considering potential harms and benefits; 2) Healthcare pathway; 3) Patients' level of interest in aspirin. All healthcare providers, across primary and specialist care, viewed general practitioners (GPs) as being responsible for prescribing and overseeing the use of aspirin. However, GPs were unfamiliar with aspirin for preventive therapy, and concerned about prescribing at higher doses (300-600 mg). To support decision-making, GPs wanted clarification from specialist clinicians on the evidence and dose to prescribe. Not all participants with Lynch syndrome received information on aspirin from their healthcare provider, and several were unsure who to discuss aspirin with. GPs were more inclined to prescribe aspirin for patients with expressed preferences for the medication, however several patients were uncertain and wanted further guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated and multilevel strategies are needed, addressing the needs of both GPs and people with Lynch syndrome, to ensure consistent implementation of national guidance on aspirin for preventive therapy.