Blood pressure, grip strength and lung function are frequently assessed in longitudinal population studies, but the measurement devices used differ between studies and within studies over time. Despite efforts to promote standardisation of measurement devices, various studies have opted for different devices due to practical considerations. Additionally, in long-term longitudinal studies, the devices used often need to be replaced with more technologically advanced ones that offer improved or extended measurement capabilities, cost-effectiveness, portability, or ease of use as outdated models become obsolete. This poses significant challenges for research that aims to compare findings across studies or track functional changes over time. A randomised, repeated measurements cross-over trial was conducted to compare measurements ascertained from different commonly used devices. Participants were recruited from London and the South East – N=118 men and women (age 45-74 years), whose blood pressure, grip strength and lung function were assessed by two sphygmomanometers (Omron 705-CP and Omron HEM-907), four handheld dynamometers (Jamar Hydraulic, Jamar Plus+ Digital, Nottingham Electronic and Smedley) and two spirometers (Micro Plus by Micro Medical and Easy on-PC by NDD), respectively, in a randomly allocated order. We identified that there are differences in measurement of blood pressure, grip strength and lung when assessed using different devices. For blood pressure, the new Omron HEM-907 measured higher than the older Omron 705-CP. For grip strength, the electronic dynamometers (Jamar Plus+ Digital and Nottingham Electronic) recorded higher measurements than either the hydraulic (Jamar Hydraulic) or spring gauge (Smedley) dynamometer. For lung function, the ndd Easy on-PC measures of FVC were higher than for the Micromedical, but there was no significant difference between measures of FEV1.The United Kingdom has a unique portfolio of birth cohort studies which provide an invaluable resource for policy-relevant research across the social and bio-medical sciences. The overarching aim of the proposed Cohort Resources Facility (CRF) is to enhance their value, use and long term sustainability. Its key objectives are to: stimulate interdisciplinary research across the existing major cohort studies; develop resources that encourage more researchers to use their data ; support training and capacity building among potential users; and, to facilitate communication between the studies so that they contribute effectively to the development of ESRC and MRC strategy. The rich and detailed longitudinal datasets created by the studies enable research which is of direct policy relevance (in the short and long term). A further important role for the CRF will be to ensure that evidence from these publicly-funded resources has maximum economic and societal impact. By following individuals through the life course and by systematically collecting data on their development, behaviour, attitudes and environment, each cohort study makes it possible both to understand trajectories of development and ageing, and to identify how early life circumstances impact on later life outcomes. Each study thus forms a rich, and complex, research resource in its own right. However, strengthening the links between the studies, and creating a more visible and accessible integrated research resource, has a number of advantages. First, the replication of findings across multiple cohorts provides robust evidence on which to base future policy decisions, for example in the areas of public health and education. Second, the portfolio of cohort studies allows for investigations across different geographical areas, generations and time periods, enabling researchers to build an understanding of how varying external contexts may contribute to, or modify outcomes for individuals. Third, there are potential economies of scale and advantages of sharing best practice which will best be realised by building strong and mutually supportive links between the teams directing individual studies. The CRF includes seven work packages (WPs). Four focus on data harmonisation, three of which aim to provide comparable cross-cohort measures of (a) biological function and structure (b) socio-economic resources, and (c) senses (e.g. vision and hearing); a fourth aims to develop standardised strategies for analysing biological samples. Three other WPs focus on linking administrative, health and geographical data to survey data and enhancing further the research resources provided by the cohort studies. A major component of the CRF is the creation of a uniform search platform. This will allow users efficiently to explore the content and design of the studies and better plan research and, in particular, analyses which use data from more than one cohort. A number of existing initiatives and organisations also aim to facilitate access to data from existing surveys, and provide training and capacity building in quantitative methods. For example, the ESRC-funded National Centre for Research Methods at the University of Southampton provides a focal point for research, training and capacity building activities, while the Economic and Social Data Service and the MRC Data Support Service both provide support for the secondary use of data across the research, learning and teaching communities. The leadership team submitting this proposal have close, and complementary, links with many of these initiatives, which will promote communication and collaboration through the lifetime of the facility.

We recruited 120 men and women from the general population aged 45-74 years (20 men and 20 women from each of the three age groups - 45-54, 55-64, 65-74). The sample was drawn from a list of individuals who had participated in a market research study.