4.6 Article

Health Behaviours, Socioeconomic Status, and Mortality: Further Analyses of the British Whitehall II and the French GAZEL Prospective Cohorts

期刊

PLOS MEDICINE
卷 8, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000419

关键词

-

资金

  1. British Medical Research Council [G0902037]
  2. British Heart Foundation [RG/07/008/23674]
  3. British Health and Safety Executive
  4. British Department of Health
  5. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH [R01HL036310]
  6. National Institute on Aging, NIH [R01AG013196, R01AG034454]
  7. EDF-GDF
  8. INSERM
  9. Cohortes Sante TGIR Program
  10. Agence nationale de la recherche (ANR)
  11. Agence francaise de securite sanitaire de l'environnement et du travail (AFSSET)
  12. European Science Foundation
  13. BUPA Foundation, UK
  14. EU
  15. Academy of Finland
  16. MRC [G0902037] Funding Source: UKRI
  17. British Heart Foundation [RG/07/008/23674] Funding Source: researchfish
  18. Medical Research Council [G8802774, G0100222, G19/35, G0902037] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据