Practice at Life-Saving Station-Channel into White Lake

verso: Small str.-"Cayuga" in distance. Boat and crew turned over for practice periodically for exhibition-years ago

"Sie liebt mich, sie liebt mich nicht..." : Kindheiten mit Borderline-Müttern und mögliche Hilfen in der Sozialen Arbeit

[s.c.]

Association of Lifecourse Socioeconomic Status with Chronic Inflammation and Type 2 Diabetes Risk: The Whitehall II Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic adversity in early life has been hypothesized to "program" a vulnerable phenotype with exaggerated inflammatory responses, so increasing the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in adulthood. The aim of this study is to test this hypothesis by assessing the extent to which the association between lifecourse socioeconomic status and type 2 diabetes incidence is explained by chronic inflammation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We use data from the British Whitehall II study, a prospective occupational cohort of adults established in 1985. The inflammatory markers C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 were measured repeatedly and type 2 diabetes incidence (new cases) was monitored over an 18-year follow-up (from 1991-1993 until 2007-2009). Our analytical sample consisted of 6,387 non-diabetic participants (1,818 women), of whom 731 (207 women) developed type 2 diabetes over the follow-up. Cumulative exposure to low socioeconomic status from childhood to middle age was associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes in adulthood (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.96, 95% confidence interval: 1.48-2.58 for low cumulative lifecourse socioeconomic score and HR = 1.55, 95% confidence interval: 1.26-1.91 for low-low socioeconomic trajectory). 25% of the excess risk associated with cumulative socioeconomic adversity across the lifecourse and 32% of the excess risk associated with low-low socioeconomic trajectory was attributable to chronically elevated inflammation (95% confidence intervals 16%-58%). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, chronic inflammation explained a substantial part of the association between lifecourse socioeconomic disadvantage and type 2 diabetes. Further studies should be performed to confirm these findings in population-based samples, as the Whitehall II cohort is not representative of the general population, and to examine the extent to which social inequalities attributable to chronic inflammation are reversible. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Socioeconomic status, structural and functional measures of social support, and mortality: The British Whitehall II Cohort Study, 1985-2009.

The authors examined the associations of social support with socioeconomic status (SES) and with mortality, as well as how SES differences in social support might account for SES differences in mortality. Analyses were based on 9,333 participants from the British Whitehall II Study cohort, a longitudinal cohort established in 1985 among London-based civil servants who were 35-55 years of age at baseline. SES was assessed using participant's employment grades at baseline. Social support was assessed 3 times in the 24.4-year period during which participants were monitored for death. In men, marital status, and to a lesser extent network score (but not low perceived support or high negative aspects of close relationships), predicted both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Measures of social support were not associated with cancer mortality. Men in the lowest SES category had an increased risk of death compared with those in the highest category (for all-cause mortality, hazard ratio = 1.59, 95% confidence interval: 1.21, 2.08; for cardiovascular mortality, hazard ratio = 2.48, 95% confidence interval: 1.55, 3.92). Network score and marital status combined explained 27% (95% confidence interval: 14, 43) and 29% (95% confidence interval: 17, 52) of the associations between SES and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, respectively. In women, there was no consistent association between social support indicators and mortality. The present study suggests that in men, social isolation is not only an important risk factor for mortality but is also likely to contribute to differences in mortality by SES.

Health behaviours, socioeconomic status, and mortality: further analyses of the British Whitehall II and the French GAZEL prospective cohorts

BACKGROUND: Differences in morbidity and mortality between socioeconomic groups constitute one of the most consistent findings of epidemiologic research. However, research on social inequalities in health has yet to provide a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms underlying this association. In recent analysis, we showed health behaviours, assessed longitudinally over the follow-up, to explain a major proportion of the association of socioeconomic status (SES) with mortality in the British Whitehall II study. However, whether health behaviours are equally important mediators of the SES-mortality association in different cultural settings remains unknown. In the present paper, we examine this issue in Whitehall II and another prospective European cohort, the French GAZEL study. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included 9,771 participants from the Whitehall II study and 17,760 from the GAZEL study. Over the follow-up (mean 19.5 y in Whitehall II and 16.5 y in GAZEL), health behaviours (smoking, alcohol consumption, diet, and physical activity), were assessed longitudinally. Occupation (in the main analysis), education, and income (supplementary analysis) were the markers of SES. The socioeconomic gradient in smoking was greater (p<0.001) in Whitehall II (odds ratio [OR] = 3.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.11-4.36) than in GAZEL (OR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.18-1.49); this was also true for unhealthy diet (OR = 7.42, 95% CI 5.19-10.60 in Whitehall II and OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.15-1.49 in GAZEL, p<0.001). Socioeconomic differences in mortality were similar in the two cohorts, a hazard ratio of 1.62 (95% CI 1.28-2.05) in Whitehall II and 1.94 in GAZEL (95% CI 1.58-2.39) for lowest versus highest occupational position. Health behaviours attenuated the association of SES with mortality by 75% (95% CI 44%-149%) in Whitehall II but only by 19% (95% CI 13%-29%) in GAZEL. Analysis using education and income yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Health behaviours were strong predictors of mortality in both cohorts but their association with SES was remarkably different. Thus, health behaviours are likely to be major contributors of socioeconomic differences in health only in contexts with a marked social characterisation of health behaviours. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Do different measures of early life socioeconomic circumstances predict adult mortality? Evidence from the British Whitehall II and French GAZEL studies

BACKGROUND: Father's occupational position, education and height have all been used to examine the effects of adverse early life socioeconomic circumstances on health, but it remains unknown whether they predict mortality equally well. METHODS: We used pooled data on 18,393 men and 7060 women from the Whitehall II and GAZEL cohorts to examine associations between early life socioeconomic circumstances and all-cause and cause-specific mortality. RESULTS: During the 20-y follow-up period, 1487 participants died. Education had a monotonic association with all mortality outcomes; the age, sex and cohort-adjusted HR for the lowest versus the highest educational group was 1.45 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.69) for all-cause mortality. There was evidence of a U-shaped association between height and all-cause, cancer and cardiovascular mortality robust to adjustment for the other indicators (HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.93 for those shorter than average and HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.88 for those taller than average for cardiovascular mortality). Greater all-cause and cancer mortality was observed in participants whose father's occupational position was manual rather than non-manual (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23 for all-cause mortality), but the risks were attenuated after adjusting for education and height. CONCLUSIONS: The association between early life socioeconomic circumstances and mortality depends on the socioeconomic indicator used and the cause of death examined. Height is not a straightforward measure of early life socioeconomic circumstances as taller people do not have a health advantage for all mortality outcomes.