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.

A hierarchical evolutionary algorithmic design (HEAD) system for generating and evolving building design models

This thesis develops a detailed conceptual design method and a system software architecture defined with a parametric and generative evolutionary design system to support an integrated interdisciplinary building design approach. The research recognises the need to shift design efforts toward the earliest phases of the design process to support crucial design decisions that have a substantial cost implication on the overall project budget. The overall motivation of the research is to improve the quality of designs produced at the author's employer, the General Directorate of Major Works (GDMW) of the Saudi Arabian Armed Forces. GDMW produces many buildings that have standard requirements, across a wide range of environmental and social circumstances. A rapid means of customising designs for local circumstances would have significant benefits. The research considers the use of evolutionary genetic algorithms in the design process and the ability to generate and assess a wider range of potential design solutions than a human could manage. This wider ranging assessment, during the early stages of the design process, means that the generated solutions will be more appropriate for the defined design problem. The research work proposes a design method and system that promotes a collaborative relationship between human creativity and the computer capability. The tectonic design approach is adopted as a process oriented design that values the process of design as much as the product. The aim is to connect the evolutionary systems to performance assessment applications, which are used as prioritised fitness functions. This will produce design solutions that respond to their environmental and function requirements. This integrated, interdisciplinary approach to design will produce solutions through a design process that considers and balances the requirements of all aspects of the design. Since this thesis covers a wide area of research material, 'methodological pluralism' approach was used, incorporating both prescriptive and descriptive research methods. Multiple models of research were combined and the overall research was undertaken following three main stages, conceptualisation, developmental and evaluation. The first two stages lay the foundations for the specification of the proposed system where key aspects of the system that have not previously been proven in the literature, were implemented to test the feasibility of the system. As a result of combining the existing knowledge in the area with the newlyverified key aspects of the proposed system, this research can form the base for a future software development project. The evaluation stage, which includes building the prototype system to test and evaluate the system performance based on the criteria defined in the earlier stage, is not within the scope this thesis. The research results in a conceptual design method and a proposed system software architecture. The proposed system is called the 'Hierarchical Evolutionary Algorithmic Design (HEAD) System'. The HEAD system has shown to be feasible through the initial illustrative paper-based simulation. The HEAD system consists of the two main components - 'Design Schema' and the 'Synthesis Algorithms'. The HEAD system reflects the major research contribution in the way it is conceptualised, while secondary contributions are achieved within the system components. The design schema provides constraints on the generation of designs, thus enabling the designer to create a wide range of potential designs that can then be analysed for desirable characteristics. The design schema supports the digital representation of the human creativity of designers into a dynamic design framework that can be encoded and then executed through the use of evolutionary genetic algorithms. The design schema incorporates 2D and 3D geometry and graph theory for space layout planning and building formation using the Lowest Common Design Denominator (LCDD) of a parameterised 2D module and a 3D structural module. This provides a bridge between the standard adjacency requirements and the evolutionary system. The use of graphs as an input to the evolutionary algorithm supports the introduction of constraints in a way that is not supported by standard evolutionary techniques. The process of design synthesis is guided as a higher level description of the building that supports geometrical constraints. The Synthesis Algorithms component analyses designs at four levels, 'Room', 'Layout', 'Building' and 'Optimisation'. At each level multiple fitness functions are embedded into the genetic algorithm to target the specific requirements of the relevant decomposed part of the design problem. Decomposing the design problem to allow for the design requirements of each level to be dealt with separately and then reassembling them in a bottom up approach reduces the generation of non-viable solutions through constraining the options available at the next higher level. The iterative approach, in exploring the range of design solutions through modification of the design schema as the understanding of the design problem improves, assists in identifying conflicts in the design requirements. Additionally, the hierarchical set-up allows the embedding of multiple fitness functions into the genetic algorithm, each relevant to a specific level. This supports an integrated multi-level, multi-disciplinary approach. The HEAD system promotes a collaborative relationship between human creativity and the computer capability. The design schema component, as the input to the procedural algorithms, enables the encoding of certain aspects of the designer's subjective creativity. By focusing on finding solutions for the relevant sub-problems at the appropriate levels of detail, the hierarchical nature of the system assist in the design decision-making process.

Project alliancing and information technology in building construction : the National Museum of Australia

The construction industry demands priority from all governments because it impacts economically and socially on all citizens. A number of recent studies have identified inefficiencies in the Australian construction industry by modelling the building process. A culture of reform supported by industry and government is now emerging in the industry – one in which alternate forms of project delivery are being trialed. The Australian Building and Construction Industry Action Agenda brought together industry and government to identify actions necessary to lift Australia’s innovative and knowledge creating capacity at the sector level. A central activity under this Action Agenda was dissemination of information relating to industry best practice initiatives in innovation, project delivery and the use of information technology. Government and industry identified project alliance contracting and more advanced information technology as means to increase efficiency in construction as part of a new innovative procurement environment.