Socioeconomic inequalities in obesity: modelling future trends in Australia

Hayes, Alison; Tan, Eng Joo; Killedar, Anagha; Lung, Thomas

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026525

Cited by 17 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to our findings, SES, region of residence, physical activity, cigarette smoking, and hookah smoking (only for obesity) were the main positive contributors to socioeconomic-related inequality in overweight and obesity. Consistent with our results, literature in both developed and developing countries indicates that the factors such as income, marital status, education and physical activity were the major factors explaining socioeconomicrelated inequality in obesity [25,[55][56][57]. In contrast, some studies note that factors such as genetic determinants, environment features, race and family history of obesity can explain the concentration of obesity in a population that should be examined in future studies [58][59][60].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Socioeconomic - related inequalities in overweight and obesity: findings from the PERSIAN cohort study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Overweight and obesity are major health concerns worldwide, with adverse health consequences during the life span. This study measured socioeconomic inequality in overweight and obesity among Iranian adults. Methods: Data were extracted from 129,257 Iranian adults (aged 35 years and older) participated in the Prospective Epidemiologic Research Studies in IrAN (PERSIAN) in 14 provinces of Iran in 2014. Socioeconomic-related inequality in overweight and obesity was estimated using the Concentration Index (C n ). The C n further decomposed to find factors explaining the variability within the Socioeconomic related inequality in overweight and obesity. Results: Of the total number of participants, 1.98, 26.82, 40.76 and 30.43% had underweight, normal weight, overweight and obesity respectively. The age-and sex standardized prevalence of obesity was higher in females than males (39.85% vs 18.79%). People with high socioeconomic status (SES) had a 39 and 15% higher chance of being overweight and obese than low SES people, respectively. The positive value of C n suggested a higher concentration of overweight (0.081, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 0.074-0.087) and obesity (0.027, 95% CI; 0.021-0.034) among groups with high SES. There was a wide variation in socioeconomic-related inequality in overweight and obesity rate across 14 provinces. The decomposition results suggested that SES factor itself explained 66.77 and 89.07% of the observed socioeconomic inequalities in overweight and obesity among Iranian adults respectively. Following SES, province of residence, physical activity, using hookah and smoking were the major contributors to the concentration of overweight and obesity among the rich. Conclusions: Overall, we found that overweight and obesity is concentrated among high SES people in the study population. . Accordingly, it seems that intersectional actions should be taken to control and prevent overweight and obesity among higher socioeconomic groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Socioeconomic - related inequalities in overweight and obesity: findings from the PERSIAN cohort study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Higher and steeper BMI trajectories in the younger birth cohort were not surprising since these participants have been affected by an obesogenic environment earlier in their life than the participants from the older cohort ( Keyes et al, 2010 ). Several studies have found greater and widening inequalities in BMI among younger birth cohorts in Western countries ( Bann et al, 2017 ; Hayes et al, 2019 ; Norris et al, 2020 ), although a substantial increase in BMI among people with high SEP has been indicated to diminish these differences as well ( Clarke et al, 2009 ). In addition to changes in the physical environment, educational development has been rapid during our study participants’ lifetime ( Statistics Finland, 2007 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intergenerational social mobility and body mass index trajectories – A follow-up study from Finland

Salmela

Lallukka

Kanerva

et al. 2021

SSM - Population Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence remains unclear on how intergenerational social mobility is associated with body mass index (BMI) and its long-term changes. Our study identified BMI trajectories from middle to older age by intergenerational social mobility groups and stratified the analyses by gender and two birth cohorts (birth years 1940‒1947 and 1950–1962). We used questionnaire-based cohort data that consists of four survey phases: 2000–2002, 2007, 2012, and 2017. In Phase 1, participants were 40–60-year-old employees of the City of Helsinki, Finland. Our analytical sample consisted of 6,971 women and 1,752 men. Intergenerational social mobility was constructed based on self-reported parental and own education—both divided into high and low—yielding four groups: stable high socioeconomic position (SEP) (high-high), upward social mobility (low-high), downward social mobility (high-low), and stable low SEP (low-low). BMI was calculated from self-reported height and weight from all four phases. Using mixed-effects linear regression, we found increasing BMI trajectories in all four social mobility groups until the age of 65. Women and men with stable high SEP had lower BMI trajectories compared to those with stable low SEP. In the younger birth cohort, women with upward social mobility had a lower BMI trajectory than women with stable low SEP. Additionally, women and men with downward social mobility had higher BMI trajectories than those with stable high SEP. In the older birth cohort, however, the BMI trajectories of upward and downward social mobility groups were somewhat similar and settled between the BMI trajectories of stable high and stable low SEP groups. Our results indicate that the associations between intergenerational social mobility and BMI may depend on gender and birth cohort. Nevertheless, to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in unhealthy weight gain, obesity prevention actions that focus on people who are likely to remain in low SEP might be worthwhile.

show abstract

“…Previous studies that evaluated associations of SEP indicators with obesity generally considered obesity as a single homogenous group, 13 and data on the association between SEP with severe obesity are limited and conflicting 14,15 . Among adults in the United Kingdom 4 and Australia, 16 severe obesity was associated with less advantaged SEP in both men and women 13 . By contrast, in the United States, severe obesity was less strongly associated with SEP, suggesting that severe obesity may have similar prevalences in all socioeconomic groups 13 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socioeconomic inequalities and severe obesity—Sex differences in a nationwide study of 1.12 million Israeli adolescents

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Introduction In a nationwide population of adolescents, we investigated the sex‐specific association of socioeconomic position (SEP) with severe obesity, and trends over time. Methods The cohort comprises all Israeli adolescents (mean ± SD age 17.3 ± 0.5 years) who were medically examined, before mandatory military service during 2000 to 2015. Of 1 120 362 adolescents, 239 816 (21.4%) were classified with overweight or with obesity classes I to III using the International Obesity Task Force criteria. Data were compared between 2000 to 2009 and 2010 to 2015. Results Considering more advantaged residential SEP as the reference group, the respective odds ratios (ORs ± 95%CI) of less advantaged SEP for obesity classes I to III in 2010 to 2015 were 1.48 (1.40‐1.56), 1.66 (1.51‐1.83), and 1.73 (1.45‐2.08) for males; and 1.72 (1.60‐1.84), 1.89 (1.66‐2.15), and 2.62 (2.04‐3.37) for females. All point estimates were higher than in the preceding decade. Considering female inductees from the more advantaged SEP as the reference group, ORs were higher for males in the more advantaged SEP group, for overweight, 1.31 (1.27‐1.36); class I obesity, 1.29 (1.20‐1.38); class II obesity, 1.34 (1.18‐1.53); and class III obesity, 1.60 (1.24‐2.07). Similarly, in the less and medium advantaged SEP groups, increased ORs for males compared with females were observed in all obesity groups. Results persisted using United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention growth charts. Conclusions Adolescents with less rather than more advantaged residential SEP are at greater risk of severe obesity. Adolescent males, of all residential SEP groups had higher odds than females for all classes of obesity.

show abstract

Socioeconomic inequalities in obesity: modelling future trends in Australia

Cited by 17 publications

References 39 publications

Socioeconomic - related inequalities in overweight and obesity: findings from the PERSIAN cohort study

Socioeconomic - related inequalities in overweight and obesity: findings from the PERSIAN cohort study

Intergenerational social mobility and body mass index trajectories – A follow-up study from Finland

Socioeconomic inequalities and severe obesity—Sex differences in a nationwide study of 1.12 million Israeli adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About