I think I have calmed down enough to write about this. The tabloid and radio headlines a few weeks ago declared that if you were a child of a working mother, you were likely to be “less healthy” or “fatter and lazier” than children of non-working mothers. Yes, I’m sensitive about the care my children get. Guilt and worry are my bedfellows, despite knowing that my children love being looked after by people more patient and creative than I am.

The paper prompting my angst appeared in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health; it asked if there was a relationship between the hours a mother worked and her children’s diets and physical activity. The researchers analysed data provided by mothers of more than 12,500 five-year-olds.

They found that children whose mothers worked were more likely to drink unhealthy drinks, spend more “inactive” time on the computer or watching TV, and be driven to school than children of mothers who had never been employed. Children of mothers who worked full time were also less likely to eat healthy snacks between meals or have enough fruit in their diet.

Working mothers! We have failed our children yet again! Or maybe we haven’t: the numbers in the paper aren’t actually that damning. In fact, it’s all in the adjustments. Statistical adjustments are made to ensure that the relationship you are trying to probe isn’t being contaminated by other factors. But adjustments also have the potential to screw up figures.

The raw data in this study tell a different story. Unadjusted figures show that children of working mothers are less likely to eat crisps or sweets between meals than children of non-working mothers (35 vs 40 per cent). Children of working mothers are also more likely to eat fruit and vegetables between meals (46 vs 41 per cent) and no more likely to use the computer or TV for more than two hours a day. In fact, the unadjusted figures put the children of working mothers at an advantage in all but car travel.

But after statistical adjustments and what the researchers call “mediation” (adjusting for sociodemographics – social class, maternal academic qualification, lone parenthood, and age at birth of first child), most of the outcomes that make working mothers look so bad are reversed.

What to make of this? First, the differences between the two groups of children were never that big. Second, the raw data show that in real life, working mothers’ children are doing fine. And third, I barely know a working woman who does not rely on her spouse, extended family, out-of-school care or nurseries to help care for her children. Statistical adjustments or not, surely it’s time to start looking at the bigger picture?

Margaret McCartney is a GP in Glasgow.
margaret.mccartney@ft.com

For lively discussion of the latest medical issues go to Margaret McCartney’s blog at www.ft.com/healthblog