4.6 Article

Socioeconomic status and metabolic syndrome in the general population of China: a cross-sectional study

期刊

BMC PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-921

关键词

Socioeconomic status; Metabolic syndrome; Cross-sectional study

资金

  1. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Individual socioeconomic status (SES) has been found to be associated with cardiovascular diseases in developed countries, but the association between individual SES and metabolic syndrome (MetS) is still unclear in China. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between individual SES and MetS in China. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 10054 community residents was performed from May to August 2007 using multistage stratified random sampling. SES was assessed in terms of education, personal monthly income, and household monthly income. The association between SES and MetS was determined by logistic regression models. Results: After the adjustments regarding age, marital status, smoking, drinking, physical activity, body mass index (BMI), and community type, odds ratios (ORs) for MetS of individuals with education level of 7 similar to 12 years and >12 years were 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 0.99) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.62 to 0.91) respectively compared with those with education level of <7 years in women. Following the adjustments as above, ORs for MetS of individuals with household monthly income level of middle and higher were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.86 to 0.97), and 0.72 (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.88) respectively compared with those with lower household monthly income level in women. The association between SES and MetS was not significant in men. Conclusions: Gender had an influence on the association between individual SES and MetS. Lower education and household monthly income level were associated with higher risk of MetS among community residents in women, while such association was not significant in men.

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