Socioeconomic position, gender, health behaviours and biomarkers of cardiovascular disease and diabetes

Socio-economic gradients in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes have been found throughout the developed world and there is some evidence to suggest that these gradients may be steeper for women. Research on social gradients in biological risk factors for CVD and diabetes has received less attention and we do not know the extent to which gradients in biomarkers vary for men and women. We examined the associations between two indicators of socio-economic position (education and household income) and biomarkers of diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD) for men and women in a national, population-based study of 11,247 Australian adults. Multi-level linear regression was used to assess associations between education and income and glucose tolerance, dyslipidaemia, blood pressure (BP) and waist circumference before and after adjustment for behaviours (diet, smoking, physical activity, TV viewing time, and alcohol use). Measures of glucose tolerance included fasting plasma glucose and insulin and the results of a glucose tolerance test (2 h glucose) with higher levels of each indicating poorer glucose tolerance. Triglycerides and High Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Cholesterol were used as measures of dyslipidaemia with higher levels of the former and lower levels of the later being associated with CVD risk. Lower education and low income were associated with higher levels of fasting insulin, triglycerides and waist circumference in women. Women with low education had higher systolic and diastolic BP and low income women had higher 2 h glucose and lower HDL cholesterol. With only one exception (low income and systolic BP), all of these estimates were reduced by more than 20% when behavioural risk factors were included. Men with lower education had higher fasting plasma glucose, 2 h glucose, waist circumference and systolic BP and, with the exception of waist circumference, all of these estimates were reduced when health behaviours were included in the models. While low income was associated with higher levels of 2-h glucose and triglycerides it was also associated with better biomarker profiles including lower insulin, waist circumference and diastolic BP. We conclude that low socio-economic position is more consistently associated with a worse profile of biomarkers for CVD and diabetes for women.

Associations between socioeconomic position, food insecurity and BMI

Introduction: Food insecurity is a social determinant of health and is defined as limited ability to access sufficient amounts of nutritionally adequate or safe food for a healthy and active life. Food insecurity is associated with poor health status and the exacerbation of other health inequalities. This study examined whether an association existed between 1) socioeconomic position (SEP) and food insecurity and 2) food insecurity and weight status. Methods: Data from the 1995 National Nutrition Survey was analysed. A random sample of households (n = 13 858) were asked about dietary habits and food choices. Information about gender, age, BMI, waist circumference, household income and whether the household had run out of money to purchase food in the previous 12 months was obtained and analysed using chi-square and logistic regression. Results: Income was significantly associated with food insecurity; households with lower income were at higher risk of food insecurity. Lower income males were nine times more likely to experience food insecurity and lower income females were three times more likely to experience food insecurity than their higher income counterparts. Food insecurity was significantly associated with body mass index (BMI) among women but not men. Women experiencing food insecurity were at higher risk of overweight/obesity according to BMI and waist circumference measures. Conclusion: Evidence suggests that low income households are at higher risk of food insecurity and women who are food insecure are at higher risk of being overweight or obese. Food insecurity may mediate the association between SEP and BMI.

Comparing the availability, price, variety and quality of fruits and vegetables across retail outlets and by area level socioeconomic position

Abstract Objective: To explore whether area-level socioeconomic position or the form of retail stream (conventional versus farmers’ market) are associated with differences in the price, availability, variety and quality of a range of fresh fruit and vegetables. Design: A multi-site cross-sectional pilot study of farmers’ markets, supermarkets and independent fruit and vegetable retailers. Each was surveyed to assess the price, availability, variety and quality of 15 fruit and 18 vegetable items. Setting: Retail outlets were located in South-East Queensland. Subjects: Fifteen retail outlets were surveyed (five of each retail stream). Results: Average basket prices were not significantly different across the socioeconomic spectrum however prices in low socioeconomic areas were cheapest. Availability, variety, and quality did not differ across levels of socioeconomic position however the areas with the most socioeconomic disadvantage scored poorest for quality and variety. Supermarkets had significantly better fruit and vegetable availability than farmers’ markets however price, variety and quality scores were not different across retail streams. Results demonstrate a trend to fruit and vegetable prices being more expensive at farmers’ markets, with the price of the Fruit basket being significantly greater at the organic farmer’s market compared with the non-organic farmers’ markets. Conclusions: Neither area-level socioeconomic position nor the form of retail stream was significantly associated with differences in the availability, price, variety and quality of fruit and vegetables, except for availability which was higher in supermarkets than farmers’ markets. Further research is needed to determine what role farmers’ markets can play in affecting fruit and vegetable intake.

Neighbourhood disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position, and self-reported chronic arthritis : a cross-sectional multilevel study

Objective: To examine the association between individual- and neighborhood-level disadvantage and self-reported arthritis. Methods: We used data from a population-based cross-sectional study conducted in 2007 among 10,757 men and women ages 40–65 years, selected from 200 neighborhoods in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia using a stratified 2-stage cluster design. Data were collected using a mail survey (68.5% response). Neighborhood disadvantage was measured using a census-based composite index, and individual disadvantage was measured using self-reported education, household income, and occupation. Arthritis was indicated by self-report. Data were analyzed using multilevel modeling. Results: The overall rate of self-reported arthritis was 23% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 22–24). After adjustment for sociodemographic factors, arthritis prevalence was greatest for women (odds ratio [OR] 1.5, 95% CI 1.4–1.7) and in those ages 60–65 years (OR 4.4, 95% CI 3.7–5.2), those with a diploma/associate diploma (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.6), those who were permanently unable to work (OR 4.0, 95% CI 3.1–5.3), and those with a household income <$25,999 (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7–2.6). Independent of individual-level factors, residents of the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were 42% (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.2–1.7) more likely than those in the least disadvantaged neighborhoods to self-report arthritis. Cross-level interactions between neighborhood disadvantage and education, occupation, and household income were not significant. Conclusion: Arthritis prevalence is greater in more socially disadvantaged neighborhoods. These are the first multilevel data to examine the relationship between individual- and neighborhood-level disadvantage upon arthritis and have important implications for policy, health promotion, and other intervention strategies designed to reduce the rates of arthritis, indicating that intervention efforts may need to focus on both people and places.

Socioeconomic position and mass media campaigns to prevent chronic disease

This cross-sectional study of a 45 to 60 year old Brisbane population examined socioeconomic differences in campaign reach, understanding of health language, and effectiveness, of a recent mass media health promotion campaign. Lower socioeconomic groups were reached significantly less and understood significantly less of the health language than higher socioeconomic groups thus contributing to the widening of the health inequality gap.

Change in walking for transport : a longitudinal study of the influence of neighbourhood disadvantage and individual-level socioeconomic position in mid-aged adults

Background Unlike leisure time physical activity, knowledge of the socioeconomic determinants of active transport is limited, research on this topic has produced mixed and inconsistent findings, and it remains unknown if peoples’ engagement in active transport declines as they age. This longitudinal study examined relationships between neighbourhood disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position and walking for transport (WfT) during mid- and early old-age (40 – 70 years). Three questions were addressed: (i) which socioeconomic groups walk for transport, (ii) does the amount of walking change over time as people age, and (iii) is the change socioeconomically patterned? Methods The data come from the HABITAT study of physical activity, a bi-annual multilevel longitudinal survey of 11,036 residents of 200 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. At each wave (2007, 2009 and 2011) respondents estimated the duration (minutes) of WfT in the previous 7 days. Neighbourhood disadvantage was measured using a census-derived index comprising 17 different socioeconomic components, and individual-level socioeconomic position was measured using education, occupation, and household income. The data were analysed using multilevel mixed-effects logistic and linear regression. Results The odds of being defined as a ‘never walker’ were significantly lower for residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods, but significantly higher for the less educated, blue collar employees, and members of lower income households. WfT declined significantly over time as people aged and the declines were more precipitous for older persons. Average minutes of WfT declined for all neighbourhoods and most socioeconomic groups; however, the declines were steeper for the retired and members of low income households. Conclusions Designing age-friendly neighbourhoods might slow or delay age-related declines in WfT and should be a priority. Steeper declines in WfT among residents of low income households may reflect their poorer health status and the impact of adverse socioeconomic exposures over the life course. Each of these declines represents a significant challenge to public health advocates, urban designers, and planners in their attempts to keep people active and healthy in their later years of life.

Associations between individual socioeconomic position, neighbourhood disadvantage, and transport mode: Baseline results from the HABITAT multilevel study

Background Understanding how different socioeconomic indicators are associated with transport modes provide insight into which interventions might contribute to reducing socioeconomic inequalities in health. The purpose of this study was to examine associations between neighbourhood-level socioeconomic disadvantage, individual-level socioeconomic position (SEP) and usual transport mode. Methods This investigation included 11,036 residents from 200 neighbourhoods in Brisbane, Australia. Respondents self-reported their usual transport mode (car or motorbike, public transport, walking or cycling). Indicators for individual-level SEP were education, occupation, and household income; and neighbourhood disadvantage was measured using a census-derived index. Data were analysed using multilevel multinomial logistic regression. High SEP respondents and residents of the most advantaged neighbourhoods who used a private motor vehicle as their usual form of transport was the reference category. Results Compared with driving a motor vehicle, the odds of using public transport were higher for white collar employees (OR1.68, 95%CrI 1.41-2.01), members of lower income households (OR 1.71 95%CrI 1.25-2.30), and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 1.93, 95%CrI 1.46-2.54); and lower for respondents with a certificate-level education (OR 0.60, 95%CrI 0.49-0.74) and blue collar workers (OR 0.63, 95%CrI 0.50-0.81). The odds of walking for transport were higher for the least educated (OR 1.58, 95%CrI 1.18-2.11), those not in the labour force (OR 1.94, 95%CrI 1.38-2.72), members of lower income households (OR 2.10, 95%CrI 1.23-3.64), and residents of more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (OR 2.73, 95%CrI 1.46-5.24). The odds of cycling were lower among less educated groups (OR 0.31, 95% CrI 0.19-0.48). Conclusion The relationships between socioeconomic characteristics and transport modes are complex, and provide challenges for those attempting to encourage active forms of transportation. Further work is required exploring the individual- and neighbourhood-level mechanisms behind transport mode choice, and what factors might influence individuals from different socioeconomic backgrounds to change to more active transport modes.

Contribution of psychosocial factors to the association between socioeconomic position and takeaway food consumption

Objective To examine whether psychosocial factors mediate (explain) the association between socioeconomic position and takeaway food consumption. Design A cross-sectional postal survey conducted in 2009. Setting Participants reported their usual consumption of 22 takeaway food items, and these were grouped into a “healthy” and “less healthy” index based on each items' nutritional properties. Principal Components Analysis was used to derive three psychosocial scales that measured beliefs about the relationship between diet and health (α = 0.73), and perceptions about the value (α = 0.79) and pleasure (α = 0.61) of takeaway food. A nutrition knowledge index was also used. Socioeconomic position was measured by highest attained education level. Subjects Randomly selected adults (n = 1,500) aged between 25–64 years in Brisbane, Australia (response rate  =  63.7%, N = 903). Results Compared with those with a bachelor degree or higher, participants with a diploma level of education were more likely to consume “healthy” takeaway food (p = 0.023) whereas the least educated (high school only) were more likely to consume “less healthy” choices (p = 0.002). The least educated were less likely to believe in a relationship between diet and health (p<0.001), and more likely to have lower nutritional knowledge compared with their highly educated counterparts (p<0.001). Education differences in beliefs about the relationship between diet and health partly and significantly mediated the association between education and “healthy” takeaway food consumption. Diet- and health-related beliefs and nutritional knowledge partly and significantly mediated the education differences in “less healthy” takeaway food consumption. Conclusions Interventions that target beliefs about the relationship between diet and health, and nutritional knowledge may reduce socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption, particularly for “less healthy” options.

Socioeconomic inequality profiles in physical and developmental health from 0-7 years : Australian National Study

Background: Early and persistent exposure to socioeconomic disadvantage impairs children’s health and wellbeing. However, it is unclear at what age health inequalities emerge or whether these relationships vary across ages and outcomes. We address these issues using cross-sectional Australian population data on the physical and developmental health of children at ages 0-1, 2-3, 4-5 and 6-7 years. Methods: 10 physical and developmental health outcomes were assessed in 2004 and 2006 for two cohorts each comprising around 5000 children. Socioeconomic position was measured as a composite of parental education, occupation and household income. Results: Lower socioeconomic position was associated with increased odds for poor outcomes. For physical health outcomes and socio-emotional competence, associations were similar across age groups and were consistent with either threshold effects (for poor general health, special healthcare needs and socio-emotional competence) or gradient effects (for illness with wheeze, sleep problems and injury). For socio-emotional difficulties, communication, vocabulary and emergent literacy, stronger socioeconomic associations were observed. The patterns were linear or accelerated and varied across ages. Conclusions: From very early childhood, social disadvantage was associated with poorer outcomes across most measures of physical and developmental health and showed no evidence of either strengthening or attenuating at older compared to younger ages. Findings confirm the importance of early childhood as a key focus for health promotion and prevention efforts.

A systematic review of studies on socioeconomic inequalities in dietary intakes associated with weight gain and overweight/obesity conducted among European adults

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.

Contribution of take-out food consumption to socioeconomic differences in fruit and vegetable intake : a mediation analysis

Lower fruit and vegetable intake among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups has been well documented, and may be a consequence of a higher consumption of take-out foods. This study examined whether, and to what extent, take-out food consumption mediated (explained) the association between socioeconomic position and fruit and vegetable intake. A cross-sectional postal survey was conducted among 1500 randomly selected adults aged 25–64 years in Brisbane, Australia in 2009 (response rate = 63.7%, N = 903). A food frequency questionnaire assessed usual daily servings of fruits and vegetables (0 to 6), overall take-out consumption (times/week) and the consumption of 22 specific take-out items (never to ≥once/day). These specific take-out items were grouped into “less healthy” and “healthy” choices and indices were created for each type of choice (0 to 100). Socioeconomic position was ascertained by education. The analyses were performed using linear regression, and a bootstrap re-sampling approach estimated the statistical significance of the mediated effects. Mean daily serves of fruits and vegetables was 1.89 (SD 1.05) and 2.47 (SD 1.12) respectively. The least educated group were more likely to consume fewer serves of fruit (B= –0.39, p<0.001) and vegetables (B= –0.43, p<0.001) compared with the highest educated. The consumption of “less healthy” take-out food partly explained (mediated) education differences in fruit and vegetable intake; however, no mediating effects were observed for overall and “healthy” take-out consumption. Regular consumption of “less healthy” take-out items may contribute to socioeconomic differences in fruit and vegetable intake, possibly by displacing these foods.

Socioeconomic inequalities in weight status among mid-aged adults : the contribution of perceptions of weight status and weight-control behaviours

Background Socioeconomically-disadvantaged adults in developed countries experience a higher prevalence of a number of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis and some forms of cancer. Overweight and obesity are major risk factors for these diseases. Lower socioeconomic groups have a greater prevalence of overweight and obesity and this may contribute to their higher morbidity and mortality. International studies suggest that socioeconomic groups may differ in their self-perceptions of weight status and their engagement in weightcontrol behaviours (WCBs). Research has shown that lower socioeconomic adults are more likely to underestimate their weight status, and are less likely to engage in WCBs. This may contribute (in part) to the marked inequalities in weight status observed at the population level. There are few, and somewhat limited, Australian studies that have examined the types of weight-control strategies people adopt, the barriers to their weight control, the determinants of their perceived weight status and WCBs. Furthermore, there are no known Australian studies that have examined socioeconomic differences in these factors to better understand the reasons for socioeconomic inequalities in weight status. Hence, the overall aim of this Thesis is to examine why socioeconomically-disadvantaged group experience a greater prevalence of overweight and obesity than their more-advantaged counterparts. Methods This Thesis used data from two sources. Men and women aged 45 to 60 years were examined from both data source. First, the longitudinal Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle (AusDiab) Study were used to advance our knowledge and understanding of socioeconomic differences in weight change, perceived weight status and WCBs. A total of 2753 participants with measured weights at both baseline (1999-2000) and follow-up (2004-2005) were included in the analyses. Percent weight change over the five-year interval was calculated and perceived weight status, WCBs and highest attained education were collected at baseline. Second, the Candidate conducted a postal questionnaire from 1013 Brisbane residents (69.8 % response rate) to investigate the relationship between socioeconomic position, determinants of perceived weight status, WCBs, and barriers and reasons to weight control. A test-retest reliability study was conducted to determine the reliability of the new measures used in the questionnaire. Most new measures had substantial to almost perfect reliability when considering either kappa coefficient or crude agreement. Results The findings from the AusDiab Study (accepted for publication in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health) showed that low-educated men and women were more likely to be obese at baseline compared to their higheducated respondents (O.R. = 1.97, 95 % C.I. = 1.30-2.98 and O.R. = 1.52, 95 % C.I. = 1.03-2.25, respectively). Over the five year follow-up period (1999-2000 to 2004- 05) there were no socioeconomic differences in weight change among men, however socioeconomically-disadvantaged women had greater weight gains. Participants perceiving themselves as overweight gained less weight than those who saw themselves as underweight or normal weight. There was no relationship between engaging in WCBs and five-year weight change. The postal questionnaire data showed that socioeconomically-disadvantaged groups were less likely to engage in WCBs. If they did engage in weight control, they were less likely to adopt exercise strategies, including moderate and vigorous physical activities but were more likely to decrease their sitting time to control their weight. Socioeconomically-disadvantaged adults reported more barriers to weight control; such as perceiving weight loss as expensive, requiring a lot of cooking skills, not being a high priority and eating differently from other people in the household. These results have been accepted for publication in Public Health Nutrition. The third manuscript (under review in Social Science and Medicine) examined socioeconomic differences in determinants of perceived weight status and reasons for weight control. The results showed that lower socioeconomic adults were more likely to specify the following reasons for weight control: they considered themselves to be too heavy, for occupational requirements, on recommendation from their doctor, family members or friends. Conversely, high-income adults were more likely to report weight control to improve their physical condition or to look more attractive compared with those on lower-incomes. There were few socioeconomic differences in the determinants of perceived weight status. Conclusions Education inequalities in overweight/obesity among men and women may be due to mis-perceptions of weight status; overweight or obese individuals in loweducated groups may not perceive their weight as problematic and therefore may not pay attention to their energy-balance behaviours. Socioeconomic groups differ in WCBs, and their reasons and perceived barriers to weight control. Health promotion programs should encourage weight control among lower socioeconomic groups. More specifically, they should encourage the engagement of physical activity or exercise and dietary strategies among disadvantaged groups. Furthermore, such programs should address potential barriers for weight control that disadvantaged groups may encounter. For example, disadvantaged groups perceive that weight control is expensive, requires cooking skills, not a high priority and eating differently from other people in the household. Lastly, health promotion programs and policies aimed at reducing overweight and obesity should be tailored to the different reasons and motivations to weight control experienced by different socioeconomic groups. Weight-control interventions targeted at higher socioeconomic groups should use improving physical condition and attractiveness as motivational goals; while, utilising social support may be more effective for encouraging weight control among lower socioeconomic groups.

Socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption among adults

Background In Australia and other developed countries, there are consistent and marked socioeconomic inequalities in health. Diet is a major contributing factor to the poorer health of lower socioeconomic groups: the dietary patterns of disadvantaged groups are least consistent with dietary recommendations for the prevention of diet-related chronic diseases compared with their more advantaged counterparts. Part of the reason that lower socioeconomic groups have poorer diets may be their consumption of takeaway foods. These foods typically have nutrient contents that fail to comply with the dietary recommendations for the prevention of chronic disease and associated risk factors. A high level of takeaway food consumption, therefore, may negatively influence overall dietary intakes and, consequently, lead to adverse health outcomes. Despite this, little attention has focused on the association between socioeconomic position (SEP) and takeaway food consumption, with the limited number of studies showing mixed results. Additionally, studies have been limited by only considering a narrow range of takeaway foods and not examining how different socioeconomic groups make choices that are more (or less) consistent with dietary recommendations. While a large number of earlier studies have consistently reported socioeconomically disadvantaged groups consume a lesser amount of fruit and vegetables, there is limited knowledge about the role of takeaway food in socioeconomic variations in fruit and vegetable intake. Furthermore, no known studies have investigated why there are socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption. The aims of this study are to: examine takeaway food consumption and the types of takeaway food consumed (healthy and less healthy) by different socioeconomic groups, to determine whether takeaway food consumption patterns explain socioeconomic variations in fruit and vegetable intake, and investigate the role of a range of psychosocial factors in explaining the association between SEP and takeaway food consumption and the choice of takeaway food. Methods This study used two cross-sectional population-based datasets: 1) the 1995 Australian National Nutrition Survey (NNS) which was conducted among a nationally representative sample of adults aged between 25.64 years (N = 7319, 61% response rate); and 2) the Food and Lifestyle Survey (FLS) which was conducted by the candidate and was undertaken among randomly selected adults aged between 25.64 years residing in Brisbane, Australia in 2009 (N = 903, 64% response rate). The FLS extended the NNS in several ways by describing current socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption patterns, formally assessing the mediated effect of takeaway food consumption to socioeconomic inequalities in fruit and vegetable intake, and also investigating whether (and which) psychosocial factors contributed to the observed socioeconomic variations in takeaway food consumption patterns. Results Approximately 32% of the NNS participants consumed takeaway food in the previous 24 hours and 38% of the FLS participants reported consuming takeaway food once a week or more. The results from analyses of the NNS and the FLS were somewhat mixed; however, disadvantaged groups were likely to consume a high level of �\less healthy. takeaway food compared with their more advantaged counterparts. The lower fruit and vegetable intake among lower socioeconomic groups was partly mediated by their high consumption of �\less healthy. takeaway food. Lower socioeconomic groups were more likely to have negative meal preparation behaviours and attitudes, and weaker health and nutrition-related beliefs and knowledge. Socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption were partly explained by meal preparation behaviours and attitudes, and these factors along with health and nutrition-related beliefs and knowledge appeared to contribute to the socioeconomic variations in choice of takeaway foods. Conclusion This thesis enhances our understanding of socioeconomic differences in dietary behaviours and the potential pathways by describing takeaway food consumption patterns by SEP, explaining the role of takeaway food consumption in socioeconomic inequalities in fruit and vegetable intake, and identifying the potential impact of psychosocial factors on socioeconomic differences in takeaway food consumption and the choice of takeaway food. Some important evidence is also provided for developing policies and effective intervention programs to improve the diet quality of the population, especially among lower socioeconomic groups. This thesis concludes with a discussion of a number of recommendations about future research and strategies to improve the dietary intake of the whole population, and especially among disadvantaged groups.