Considering the Inclusion of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Markers in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics

Abstract

The inclusion of biomarkers in social surveys such as the PSID has the potential to answer many elusive questions in social science and public health, including the much-studied relationship between socioeconomic status and health. This paper reviews the potential inclusion of biomarkers of cardiovascular and metabolic risk in the PSID. We first discuss the considerable analytical benefits of adding these biomarkers to the PSID, including the exploration of life course hypotheses and the potential to test causal relationships between the social environment and biological systems. Next, we review evidence on the reliability of self-reports of cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors, concluding that the potential bias from relying on self-reports may be substantial. Based on evidence of biological importance as well as practical considerations of ease of in-home collection, our first tier of recommended biomarkers includes measured height, weight, waist and hip circumference, diastolic and systolic blood pressure, resting heart rate, total and HDL cholesterol, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), C-reactive protein (CRP), and cystatin C. Additional markers of secondary priority are also discussed.

Socioeconomic Status and Biological Markers of Health

“…These biological factors, in turn, reflect the effects on the body of living and working in different social and economic conditions (Crimmins, Kim & Vasunilashorn, 2010; Goldman & Dowd, 2009; McEwen & Seeman, 1999). Understanding SES differentials in biological risk, therefore, may provide insights for better understanding patterns of social disparities in health (Crimmins, Kim & Vasunilashorn, 2010).…”

“…Crimmins and Seeman (2004) note that social and economic circumstances, such as those mentioned above, work primarily through biological factors to affect health: Elevated biological risk is the precursor to the development of diseases and loss of bodily functions, which are then followed by frailty, and ultimately death (Crimmins, Kim, & Vasunilashorn, 2010; Crimmins & Seeman, 2004). These biological factors, in turn, reflect the effects on the body of living and working in different social and economic conditions (Crimmins, Kim, & Vasunilashorn, 2010; Goldman & Dowd, 2009; McEwen & Seeman, 1999). Understanding SES differentials in biological risk, therefore, may provide insights for better understanding patterns of social disparities in health (Crimmins, Kim, & Vasunilashorn, 2010).…”