BACKGROUND: The association of social class with health has been extensively studied, yet relationships between social class and gastrointestinal symptoms remain almost unexplored. AIMS: To examine relationships between social class and gastrointestinal symptoms in a population sample. METHODS: The prevalence of 16 troublesome gastrointestinal symptoms was determined by a postal questionnaire sent to 15 000 subjects (response rate 60%) and compared with a validated composite measure of socioeconomic status (index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage). Comparisons across social class were explored for five symptom categories (oesophageal symptoms; upper dysmotility symptoms; bowel symptoms; diarrhoea; and constipation). Results are reported as age standardised rate ratios with the most advantaged social class as the reference category. RESULTS: There were clear trends for the prevalence rates of all gastrointestinal symptoms to increase with decreasing social class. These trends were particularly strong for the five symptom categories. Lower social class was associated with a significantly (p<0.0001) higher number of symptoms reported overall and with a higher proportion of individuals reporting 1-2 symptoms and more than five symptoms. In both sexes, the most pronounced effects for subjects in the lowest social class were found for constipation (males: rate ratio 1.83 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.16-2.51); females: rate ratio 1.68 (95% CI 1.31-2.04)) and upper dysmotility symptoms (males: rate ratio 1.45 (95% CI 1.02-1.88); females: rate ratio 1.35 (95% CI 1.07-1.63)). Oesophageal symptoms and diarrhoea were not associated with social class. CONCLUSIONS: Troublesome gastrointestinal symptoms are linked to socioeconomic status with more symptoms reported by subjects in low socioeconomic classes. Low socioeconomic class should be considered a risk factor for both upper and lower gastrointestinal symptoms.
BACKGROUND: The association of social class with health has been extensively studied, yet relationships between social class and gastrointestinal symptoms remain almost unexplored. AIMS: To examine relationships between social class and gastrointestinal symptoms in a population sample. METHODS: The prevalence of 16 troublesome gastrointestinal symptoms was determined by a postal questionnaire sent to 15 000 subjects (response rate 60%) and compared with a validated composite measure of socioeconomic status (index of relative socioeconomic disadvantage). Comparisons across social class were explored for five symptom categories (oesophageal symptoms; upper dysmotility symptoms; bowel symptoms; diarrhoea; and constipation). Results are reported as age standardised rate ratios with the most advantaged social class as the reference category. RESULTS: There were clear trends for the prevalence rates of all gastrointestinal symptoms to increase with decreasing social class. These trends were particularly strong for the five symptom categories. Lower social class was associated with a significantly (p<0.0001) higher number of symptoms reported overall and with a higher proportion of individuals reporting 1-2 symptoms and more than five symptoms. In both sexes, the most pronounced effects for subjects in the lowest social class were found for constipation (males: rate ratio 1.83 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.16-2.51); females: rate ratio 1.68 (95% CI 1.31-2.04)) and upper dysmotility symptoms (males: rate ratio 1.45 (95% CI 1.02-1.88); females: rate ratio 1.35 (95% CI 1.07-1.63)). Oesophageal symptoms and diarrhoea were not associated with social class. CONCLUSIONS:Troublesome gastrointestinal symptoms are linked to socioeconomic status with more symptoms reported by subjects in low socioeconomic classes. Low socioeconomic class should be considered a risk factor for both upper and lower gastrointestinal symptoms.
Authors: D A Drossman; Z Li; E Andruzzi; R D Temple; N J Talley; W G Thompson; W E Whitehead; J Janssens; P Funch-Jensen; E Corazziari Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 1993-09 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: C Gauci; H Gilles; S O'brien; J Mamo; I Stabile; F M Ruggeri; A Gatt; N Calleja; G Spiteri Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 2.451
Authors: Jaimie L Gradus; Dóra Körmendiné Farkas; Elisabeth Svensson; Vera Ehrenstein; Timothy L Lash; Henrik Toft Sørensen Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: N Pallotta; D Piacentino; B Ciccantelli; M Rivera; N Golini; A Spagnoli; G Vincoli; S Farchi; Es Corazziari Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: A Jaber; S Hemmer; R Klotz; T Ferbert; C Hensel; C Eisner; Y M Ryang; P Obid; K Friedrich; W Pepke; M Akbar Journal: Orthopade Date: 2021-06 Impact factor: 1.087
Authors: Nicholas B Tiller; Kirsty J Elliott-Sale; Beat Knechtle; Patrick B Wilson; Justin D Roberts; Guillaume Y Millet Journal: Sports Med Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Michael P Jones; Lukas Van Oudenhove; Natasha Koloski; Jan Tack; Nicholas J Talley Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.623