Literature DB >> 16294261

Social position affects bone mass in childhood through opposing actions on height and weight.

Emma M Clark1, Andy Ness, Jon H Tobias.   

Abstract

UNLABELLED: We studied relationships between social position of the mother in pregnancy and bone mass of the child at age 9.9 years. The tendency for social position to increase bone area and bone mass through a positive influence on height was opposed by a negative effect of social position on weight and fat mass.
INTRODUCTION: Evidence that social factors influence skeletal growth raises the possibility that bone mass acquisition in childhood is socially determined.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: To clarify the role of social factors in bone mass acquisition in childhood, we studied relationships between these variables in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). Measures of the mother's social position during pregnancy were linked to DXA results obtained at age 9.9 years in 6,702 children. Linear regression analyses were carried out after adjusting for age and gender. Because social position may affect height and weight of the child, analyses were repeated after adjusting for these additional variables.
RESULTS: Measures of social position in pregnancy were unrelated to total body BMC in analyses adjusted for age and gender alone. However, after adjusting for height, which was positively related to social position, a strong negative association was observed between BMC and housing tenure (p < 0.001), maternal education (p < 0.001), paternal education (p < 0.001), and social class (p < 0.001). Similar results were obtained for bone area. After adjusting for weight as well as height, an association between social position and BMC and bone area was no longer observed. Hence, social position seems to exert opposing height- and weight-dependent effects on BMC and bone area in childhood. In further analyses, we found that adjusting for fat mass of the child led to similar results to those obtained with weight.
CONCLUSIONS: Social position in childhood seems to be positively related to bone mass acquisition in childhood as a consequence of enhanced gain in height (i.e., longitudinal growth). However, this influence is counteracted by the tendency for increased fat deposition in those from a lower social position to increase bone area, presumably reflecting the stimulation of appositional bone growth.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16294261     DOI: 10.1359/JBMR.050808

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Miner Res        ISSN: 0884-0431            Impact factor:   6.741


  25 in total

1.  Educational achievement and fracture risk.

Authors:  E Clark; J Tobias
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2009-12-09       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 2.  Life-course evidence of birth weight effects on bone mass: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  J Martínez-Mesa; M C Restrepo-Méndez; D A González; F C Wehrmeister; B L Horta; M R Domingues; A M B Menezes
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 4.507

Review 3.  Association between socioeconomic status and bone mineral density in adults: a systematic review.

Authors:  S L Brennan; J A Pasco; D M Urquhart; B Oldenburg; Y Wang; A E Wluka
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-05-07       Impact factor: 4.507

4.  Socioeconomic status and bone health in community-dwelling older men: the CHAMP Study.

Authors:  I Nabipour; R Cumming; D J Handelsman; M Litchfield; V Naganathan; L Waite; H Creasey; M Janu; D Le Couteur; P N Sambrook; M J Seibel
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 4.507

5.  Bone density and bone area in Canadian Aboriginal women: the First Nations Bone Health Study.

Authors:  W D Leslie; C J Metge; H A Weiler; M Doupe; P Wood Steiman; J D O'Neil
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2006-09-08       Impact factor: 4.507

6.  Impact of maternal veiling during pregnancy and socioeconomic status on offspring's musculoskeletal health.

Authors:  M Nabulsi; Z Mahfoud; J Maalouf; A Arabi; G E-H Fuleihan
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2007-08-29       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Natural history, reasons for, and impact of low/non-adherence to medications for osteoporosis in a cohort of community-dwelling older women already established on medication: a 2-year follow-up study.

Authors:  E M Clark; V C Gould; J H Tobias; R Horne
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 4.507

8.  FRAX provides robust fracture prediction regardless of socioeconomic status.

Authors:  S L Brennan; W D Leslie; L M Lix; H Johansson; A Oden; E McCloskey; J A Kanis
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2013-11-05       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Association between physical activity and scoliosis: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Jon H Tobias; Jeremy Fairbank; Ian Harding; Hilary J Taylor; Emma M Clark
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 7.196

10.  How does body fat influence bone mass in childhood? A Mendelian randomization approach.

Authors:  Nicholas J Timpson; Adrian Sayers; George Davey-Smith; Jonathan H Tobias
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 6.741

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.