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.

Deprivation is an independent predictor of 1-year mortality in outpatients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Deprivation is linked to increased incidence in a number of chronic diseases but its relationship to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is uncertain despite suggestions that the socioeconomic gradient seen in COPD is as great, if not greater, than any other disease (Prescott and Vestbo).1 There is also a need to take into account the confounding effects of malnutrition which have been shown to be independently linked to increased mortality (Collins et al).2 The current study investigated the influence of social deprivation on 1-year survival rates in COPD outpatients, independently of malnutrition. 424 outpatients with COPD were routinely screened for malnutrition risk using the ‘Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool’; ‘MUST’ (Elia),3 between July and May 2009; 222 males and 202 females; mean age 73 (SD 9.9) years; body mass index 25.8 (SD 6.3) kg/m2. Each individual's deprivation was calculated using the index of multiple deprivation (IMD) which was established according to the geographical location of each patient's address (postcode). IMD includes a number of indicators covering economic, housing and social issues (eg, health, education and employment) into a single deprivation score (Nobel et al).4 The lower the IMD score, the lower an individual's deprivation. The IMD was assigned to each outpatient at the time of screening and related to1-year mortality from the date screened. Outpatients who died within 1-year of screening were significantly more likely to reside within a deprived postcode (IMD 19.7±SD 13.1 vs 15.4±SD 10.7; p=0.023, OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06) than those that did not die. Deprivation remained a significant independent risk factor for 1-year mortality even when adjusted for malnutrition as well as age, gender and disease severity (binary logistic regression; p=0.008, OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.07). Deprivation was not associated with disease-severity (p=0.906) or body mass index, kg/m2 (p=0.921) using ANOVA. This is the first study to show that deprivation, assessed using IMD, is associated with increased 1-year mortality in outpatients with COPD independently of malnutrition, age and disease severity. Deprivation should be considered in the targeted management of these patients.

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.

Socioeconomic status and health outcomes in a developing country

Although the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and health is well documented for developed countries, less evidence has been presented for developing countries. The aim of this paper is to analyse this relationship at the household level for Fiji, a developing country in the South Pacific, using original household survey data. To allow for the endogeneity of SES status in the household health production function, we utilize a simultaneous equation approach where estimates are achieved by full information maximum likelihood. By restricting our sample to one, relatively small island, and including area and district hospital effects, physical geography effects are unpacked from income effects. We measure SES, as permanent income which is constructed using principal components analysis. An alternative specification considers transitory household income. We find that a 1% increase in wealth (our measure of permanent income) would lead to a 15% decrease in the probability of an incapacitating illness occurring intra-household. Although the presence of a strong relationship indicates that relatively small improvements in SES status can significantly improve health at the household level, it is argued that the design of appropriate policy would also require an understanding of the various mechanisms through which the relationship operates.

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.

Does food insecurity contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in 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.

Why we need a population-based approach to clinical indicators for cancer: a case study using microscopic confirmation of lung cancer in Queensland

An important function of clinical cancer registries is to provide feedback to clinicians on various performance measures. To date, most clinical cancer registries in Australia are located in tertiary academic hospitals, where adherence to guidelines is probably already high. Microscopic confirmation is an important process measure for lung cancer care. We found that the proportion of patients with lung cancer without microscopic confirmation was much higher in regional public hospitals (27.1%) than in tertiary hospitals (7.5%), and this disparity remained after adjusting for age, sex and comorbidities. The percentage was also higher in the private than in the public sector. This case study shows that we need a population-based approach to measuring clinical indicators that includes regional public hospitals as a matter of priority and should ideally include the private sector.

Socioeconomic inequalities in cardiovascular mortality and the role of childhood socioeconomic conditions and adulthood risk factors : a prospective cohort study with 17-years of follow up

Background The mechanisms underlying socioeconomic inequalities in mortality from cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are largely unknown. We studied the contribution of childhood socioeconomic conditions and adulthood risk factors to inequalities in CVD mortality in adulthood. Methods The prospective GLOBE study was carried out in the Netherlands, with baseline data from 1991, and linked with the cause of death register in 2007. At baseline, participants reported on adulthood socioeconomic position (SEP) (own educational level), childhood socioeconomic conditions (occupational level of respondent’s father), and a broad range of adulthood risk factors (health behaviours, material circumstances, psychosocial factors). This present study is based on 5,395 men and 6,306 women, and the data were analysed using Cox regression models and hazard ratios (HR). Results A low adulthood SEP was associated with increased CVD mortality for men (HR 1.84; 95% CI: 1.41-2.39) and women (HR 1.80; 95%CI: 1.04-3.10). Those with poorer childhood socioeconomic conditions were more likely to die from CVD in adulthood, but this reached statistical significance only among men with the poorest childhood socioeconomic circumstances. About half of the investigated adulthood risk factors showed significant associations with CVD mortality among both men and women, namely renting a house, experiencing financial problems, smoking, physical activity and marital status. Alcohol consumption and BMI showed a U-shaped relationship with CVD mortality among women, with the risk being significantly greater for both abstainers and heavy drinkers, and among women who were underweight or obese. Among men, being single or divorced and using sleep/anxiety drugs increased the risk of CVD mortality. In explanatory models, the largest contributor to adulthood CVD inequalities were material conditions for men (42%; 95% CI: −73 to −20) and behavioural factors for women (55%; 95% CI: -191 to −28). Simultaneous adjustment for adulthood risk factors and childhood socioeconomic conditions attenuated the HR for the lowest adulthood SEP to 1.34 (95% CI: 0.99-1.82) for men and 1.19 (95% CI: 0.65-2.15) for women. Conclusions Adulthood material, behavioural and psychosocial factors played a major role in the explanation of adulthood SEP inequalities in CVD mortality. Childhood socioeconomic circumstances made a modest contribution, mainly via their association with adulthood risk factors. Policies and interventions to reduce health inequalities are likely to be most effective when considering the influence of socioeconomic circumstances across the entire life course and in particular, poor material conditions and unhealthy behaviours in adulthood.