SummaryBackgroundIn 2011, WHO member states signed up to the 25 × 25 initiative, a plan to cut mortality due to non-communicable diseases by 25% by 2025. However, socioeconomic factors influencing non-communicable diseases have not been included in the plan. In this study, we aimed to compare the contribution of socioeconomic status to mortality and years-of-life-lost with that of the 25 × 25 conventional risk factors.MethodsWe did a multicohort study and meta-analysis with individual-level data from 48 independent prospective cohort studies with information about socioeconomic status, indexed by occupational position, 25 × 25 risk factors (high alcohol intake, physical inactivity, current smoking, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity), and mortality, for a total population of 1 751 479 (54% women) from seven high-income WHO member countries. We estimated the association of socioeconomic status and the 25 × 25 risk factors with all-cause mortality and cause-specific mortality by calculating minimally adjusted and mutually adjusted hazard ratios [HR] and 95% CIs. We also estimated the population attributable fraction and the years of life lost due to suboptimal risk factors.FindingsDuring 26·6 million person-years at risk (mean follow-up 13·3 years [SD 6·4 years]), 310 277 participants died. HR for the 25 × 25 risk factors and mortality varied between 1·04 (95% CI 0·98–1·11) for obesity in men and 2 ·17 (2·06–2·29) for current smoking in men. Participants with low socioeconomic status had greater mortality compared with those with high socioeconomic status (HR 1·42, 95% CI 1·38–1·45 for men; 1·34, 1·28–1·39 for women); this association remained significant in mutually adjusted models that included the 25 × 25 factors (HR 1·26, 1·21–1·32, men and women combined). The population attributable fraction was highest for smoking, followed by physical inactivity then socioeconomic status. Low socioeconomic status was associated with a 2·1-year reduction in life expectancy between ages 40 and 85 years, the corresponding years-of-life-lost were 0·5 years for high alcohol intake, 0·7 years for obesity, 3·9 years for diabetes, 1·6 years for hypertension, 2·4 years for physical inactivity, and 4·8 years for current smoking.InterpretationSocioeconomic circumstances, in addition to the 25 × 25 factors, should be targeted by local and global health strategies and health risk surveillance to reduce mortality.FundingEuropean Commission, Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Swiss National Science Foundation, the Medical Research Council, NordForsk, Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology.

This Review examined socioeconomic inequalities in intakes of dietary factors associated with weight gain, overweight/obesity among adults in Europe. Literature searches of studies published between 1990 and 2007 examining socioeconomic position (SEP) and the consumption of energy, fat, fibre, fruit, vegetables, energy-rich drinks and meal patterns were conducted. Forty-seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The direction of associations between SEP and energy intakes were inconsistent. Approximately half the associations examined between SEP and fat intakes showed higher total fat intakes among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. There was some evidence that these groups consume a diet lower in fibre. The most consistent evidence of dietary inequalities was for fruit and vegetable consumption; lower socioeconomic groups were less likely to consume fruit and vegetables. Differences in energy, fat and fibre intakes (when found) were small-to-moderate in magnitude; however, differences were moderate-to-large for fruit and vegetable intakes. Socioeconomic inequalities in the consumption of energy-rich drinks and meal patterns were relatively under-studied compared with other dietary factors. There were no regional or gender differences in the direction and magnitude of the inequalities in the dietary factors examined. The findings suggest that dietary behaviours may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in overweight/obesity in Europe. However, there is only consistent evidence that fruit and vegetables may make an important contribution to inequalities in weight status across European regions.

American adults are less healthy than Europeans at all wealth levels. The poorest Americans experience the greatest disadvantage relative to Europeans.

We examined whether changes in different forms of social participation were associated with changes in depressive symptoms in older Europeans. We used lagged individual fixed-effects models based on data from 9,068 persons aged ≥50 years in wave 1 (2004/2005), wave 2 (2006/2007), and wave 4 (2010/2011) of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). After we controlled for a wide set of confounders, increased participation in religious organizations predicted a decline in depressive symptoms (EURO-D Scale; possible range, 0-12) 4 years later (β = -0.190 units, 95% confidence interval: -0.365, -0.016), while participation in political/community organizations was associated with an increase in depressive symptoms (β = 0.222 units, 95% confidence interval: 0.018, 0.428). There were no significant differences between European regions in these associations. Our findings suggest that social participation is associated with depressive symptoms, but the direction and strength of the association depend on the type of social activity. Participation in religious organizations may offer mental health benefits beyond those offered by other forms of social participation.

No abstract

Background and Purpose-This study assesses the effect of socioeconomic status on stroke incidence in the elderly, and the contribution of risk factors to stroke disparities. Methods-Data comprised a sample of 2812 men and women aged 65 years and over from the New Haven cohort of the Established Populations for the Epidemiologic Studies of the Elderly. Individuals provided baseline information on demographics, functioning, cardiovascular and psychosocial risk factors in 1982 and were followed for 12 years. Proportional hazard models were used to model survival from initial interview to first fatal or nonfatal stroke. Results-Two hundred and seventy subjects developed incident stroke. At ages 65 to 74, lower socioeconomic status was associated with higher stroke incidence for both education (HR lowest/highest ϭ2.07, 95% CI, 1.04 to 4.13) and income (HR lowest/highest ϭ2.08, 95% CI, 1.01 to 4.27). Adjustment for race, diabetes, depression, social networks and functioning attenuated hazard ratios to a nonsignificant level, whereas other risk factors did not change associations significantly. Beyond age 75, however, stroke rates were higher among those with the highest education (HR lowest/highest ϭ0.42, 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.79) and income (HR lowest/highest ϭ0.43, 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.86), which remained largely unchanged after adjustment for risk factors. Conclusions-We observed substantial socioeconomic disparities in stroke at ages 65 to 74, whereas a crossover of the association occurred beyond age 75. Policies to improve social and economic resources at early old age, and interventions to improve diabetes management, depression, social networks and functioning in the disadvantaged elderly can contribute to reduce stroke disparities.

No abstract

Americans lead shorter and less healthy lives than people in other high-income countries. We review the evidence and explanations for these variations in longevity and health. Our overview suggests that the US health disadvantage applies to multiple mortality and morbidity outcomes. The American health disadvantage begins at birth and extends across the life-course, and it is particularly marked for American women and for regions in the US South and Midwest. Proposed explanations include differences in health care, individual behaviors, socioeconomic inequalities, and the physical and built environment. While these factors may contribute to poorer health in America, a focus on proximal causes fails to adequately account for the ubiquity of the US health disadvantage across the life-course. We discuss the role of specific public policies and conclude that while multiple causes are implicated, crucial differences in social policy might underlie an important part of the US health disadvantage.