Roberto De Vogli1, Eric Brunner, Michael G Marmot. 1. International Institute for Society and Health, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom. r.devogli@ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Little work has investigated the relationship between unfairness and risk factors for heart disease. We examine the role of unfairness in predicting the metabolic syndrome and explaining the social gradient of the metabolic syndrome. METHODS: The design is a prospective study with an average follow-up of 5.8 years. Participants were 4128 males and 1715 females of 20 civil service departments in London (Whitehall II study). Sociodemographics, unfairness, employment grade, behavioral risk factors, and other psychosocial factors were measured at baseline (Phase 3, 1991-1993). Waist circumference, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, fasting glucose, and hypertension were used to define metabolic syndrome at follow-up (Phase 5, 1997-2000), according to the National Cholesterol Education Program/Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. RESULTS: Unfairness is positively associated with waist circumference, hypertension, triglycerides, and fasting glucose and negatively associated with serum HDL cholesterol. High levels of unfairness are also associated with the metabolic syndrome [odds ratio (OR)=1.72, 95% CI=1.31-2.25], after adjustment for age and gender. After additional adjustment for employment grade, behavioral risk factors, and other psychosocial factors, the relationship between high unfairness and metabolic syndrome weakened but remained significant (OR=1.37, 95% CI=1.00-1.93). When adjusting for unfairness, the social gradient of metabolic syndrome was reduced by approximately 10%. CONCLUSION: Unfairness may be a risk factor for the metabolic syndrome and its components. Future research is needed to study the biological mechanisms linking unfairness and the metabolic syndrome.
OBJECTIVES: Little work has investigated the relationship between unfairness and risk factors for heart disease. We examine the role of unfairness in predicting the metabolic syndrome and explaining the social gradient of the metabolic syndrome. METHODS: The design is a prospective study with an average follow-up of 5.8 years. Participants were 4128 males and 1715 females of 20 civil service departments in London (Whitehall II study). Sociodemographics, unfairness, employment grade, behavioral risk factors, and other psychosocial factors were measured at baseline (Phase 3, 1991-1993). Waist circumference, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, fasting glucose, and hypertension were used to define metabolic syndrome at follow-up (Phase 5, 1997-2000), according to the National Cholesterol Education Program/Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. RESULTS: Unfairness is positively associated with waist circumference, hypertension, triglycerides, and fasting glucose and negatively associated with serum HDL cholesterol. High levels of unfairness are also associated with the metabolic syndrome [odds ratio (OR)=1.72, 95% CI=1.31-2.25], after adjustment for age and gender. After additional adjustment for employment grade, behavioral risk factors, and other psychosocial factors, the relationship between high unfairness and metabolic syndrome weakened but remained significant (OR=1.37, 95% CI=1.00-1.93). When adjusting for unfairness, the social gradient of metabolic syndrome was reduced by approximately 10%. CONCLUSION: Unfairness may be a risk factor for the metabolic syndrome and its components. Future research is needed to study the biological mechanisms linking unfairness and the metabolic syndrome.
Authors: Kuixing Zhang; Fangwen Rao; Lei Wang; Brinda K Rana; Sajalendu Ghosh; Manjula Mahata; Rany M Salem; Juan L Rodriguez-Flores; Maple M Fung; Jill Waalen; Bamidele Tayo; Laurent Taupenot; Sushil K Mahata; Daniel T O'Connor Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-04-06 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Kuixing Zhang; Fangwen Rao; Jose Pablo Miramontes-Gonzalez; C Makena Hightower; Brian Vaught; Yuhong Chen; Tiffany A Greenwood; Andrew J Schork; Lei Wang; Manjula Mahata; Mats Stridsberg; Srikrishna Khandrika; Nilima Biswas; Maple M Fung; Jill Waalen; Rita P Middelberg; Andrew C Heath; Grant W Montgomery; Nicholas G Martin; John B Whitfield; Dewleen G Baker; Nicholas J Schork; Caroline M Nievergelt; Daniel T O'Connor Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2012-09-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Danielle L Beatty Moody; Yuefang Chang; Charlotte Brown; Joyce T Bromberger; Karen A Matthews Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Kevin W Smith; Nancy Krieger; Anna Kosheleva; Matthew Urato; Pamela D Waterman; David R Williams; Dana R Carney; Jarvis T Chen; Gary G Bennett; Elmer Freeman Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Kuixing Zhang; Fangwen Rao; Brinda K Rana; Jiaur R Gayen; Federico Calegari; Angus King; Patrizia Rosa; Wieland B Huttner; Mats Stridsberg; Manjula Mahata; Sucheta Vaingankar; Vafa Mahboubi; Rany M Salem; Juan L Rodriguez-Flores; Maple M Fung; Douglas W Smith; Nicholas J Schork; Michael G Ziegler; Laurent Taupenot; Sushil K Mahata; Daniel T O'Connor Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2009-02
Authors: Heather H McClure; J Josh Snodgrass; Charles R Martinez; J Mark Eddy; Roberto A Jiménez; Laura E Isiordia Journal: Am J Hum Biol Date: 2010 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.937