Vera Tsenkova1, Tetyana Pudrovska, Arun Karlamangla. 1. From the Center for Women's Health and Health Disparities Research (V.T.), University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; Department of Sociology, (T.P.), University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; and Department of Medicine (A.K.), UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationship between childhood socioeconomic status (SES) and glucoregulation in later life and used a life-course framework to examine critical periods and underlying pathways. METHODS: Data came from the Midlife in the US (MIDUS) national study (n = 895). Childhood SES indicators retrospectively reported at MIDUS I were used to create a childhood SES disadvantage index. Adult SES disadvantage and potential pathways were measured at MIDUS I and included waist circumference, depressive symptoms, and physical activity. Glucose and hemoglobin A1c, measured approximately 9 to 10 years later at MIDUS II, were used to create the ordinal outcome measure (no diabetes/prediabetes/diabetes). RESULTS: Childhood SES disadvantage predicted increased odds of prediabetes and diabetes net of age, sex, race, and smoking (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.22). Childhood SES disadvantage predicted adult SES disadvantage (β = .26, p = .001) and the three key mediators: waist circumference (β = 0.10, p = .002), physical activity (β = -0.11, p = .001), and depressive symptoms (β = 0.07, p = .072). When childhood and adult SES disadvantage were in the same model, only adult SES predicted glucoregulation (odds ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.13). The SES disadvantage measures were no longer significantly associated with glucoregulation after including waist circumference, physical activity, and depressive symptoms, all of which were significant predictors of glucoregulation. CONCLUSIONS: The consequences of childhood SES disadvantage are complex and include both critical period and pathway effects. The lack of a direct effect of childhood SES on glucoregulation does not negate the importance of early environment but suggests that early-life socioeconomic factors propel unequal life-course trajectories that ultimately influence health.
OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationship between childhood socioeconomic status (SES) and glucoregulation in later life and used a life-course framework to examine critical periods and underlying pathways. METHODS: Data came from the Midlife in the US (MIDUS) national study (n = 895). Childhood SES indicators retrospectively reported at MIDUS I were used to create a childhood SES disadvantage index. Adult SES disadvantage and potential pathways were measured at MIDUS I and included waist circumference, depressive symptoms, and physical activity. Glucose and hemoglobin A1c, measured approximately 9 to 10 years later at MIDUS II, were used to create the ordinal outcome measure (no diabetes/prediabetes/diabetes). RESULTS: Childhood SES disadvantage predicted increased odds of prediabetes and diabetes net of age, sex, race, and smoking (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.22). Childhood SES disadvantage predicted adult SES disadvantage (β = .26, p = .001) and the three key mediators: waist circumference (β = 0.10, p = .002), physical activity (β = -0.11, p = .001), and depressive symptoms (β = 0.07, p = .072). When childhood and adult SES disadvantage were in the same model, only adult SES predicted glucoregulation (odds ratio = 1.07, 95% confidence interval = 1.01-1.13). The SES disadvantage measures were no longer significantly associated with glucoregulation after including waist circumference, physical activity, and depressive symptoms, all of which were significant predictors of glucoregulation. CONCLUSIONS: The consequences of childhood SES disadvantage are complex and include both critical period and pathway effects. The lack of a direct effect of childhood SES on glucoregulation does not negate the importance of early environment but suggests that early-life socioeconomic factors propel unequal life-course trajectories that ultimately influence health.
Authors: Marko Elovainio; Laura Pulkki-Råback; Markus Jokela; Mika Kivimäki; Mirka Hintsanen; Taina Hintsa; Jorma Viikari; Olli T Raitakari; Liisa Keltikangas-Järvinen Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2012-01-21 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Brendan T Smith; John W Lynch; Caroline S Fox; Sam Harper; Michal Abrahamowicz; Nisha D Almeida; Eric B Loucks Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: An Pan; Nana Keum; Olivia I Okereke; Qi Sun; Mika Kivimaki; Richard R Rubin; Frank B Hu Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Joseph Lunyera; John W Stanifer; Clemontina A Davenport; Dinushika Mohottige; Nrupen A Bhavsar; Julia J Scialla; Jane Pendergast; L Ebony Boulware; Clarissa Jonas Diamantidis Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: David E Vance; Leah H Rubin; Victor Valcour; Drenna Waldrop-Valverde; Pauline M Maki Journal: Curr HIV/AIDS Rep Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 5.071
Authors: Antoinette M Stroup; Kimberly A Herget; Heidi A Hanson; Diana Lane Reed; Jared T Butler; Kevin A Henry; C Janna Harrell; Carol Sweeney; Ken R Smith Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 4.254