| Literature DB >> 30223546 |
Natalia Arias1, María Dolores Calvo2, José Alberto Benítez-Andrades3, María José Álvarez4, Beatriz Alonso-Cortés5, Carmen Benavides6.
Abstract
Socioeconomic status (SES) influences all the determinants of health, conditioning health throughout life. The aim of the present study was to explore the relationship between socioeconomic status and obesity in adolescence through an analysis of the patterns of contact between peers as a function of this parameter. A cross-sectional study was performed, analyzing a sample of 235 students aged 14 to 18 and 11 class networks. Social network analysis was used to analyze structural variables of centrality from a sociocentric perspective. We found that adolescents with a medium-low SES presented a two-fold higher probability of being overweight, but we did not detect any differences in the configuration of their social networks when compared with those of normal-weight adolescents. However, we did find significant differences in the formation of networks according to SES in the overall sample and disaggregated by gender, whereby adolescents with a high SES in general presented a higher capacity to form wider social networks. Elucidating the relationship between SES and overweight and its influence on social network formation can contribute to the design of preventative strategies against overweight and obesity in adolescents, since their social environment can provide them with several resources to combat excess weight.Entities:
Keywords: adolescent; obesity; peers; social networks; socioeconomic status
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30223546 PMCID: PMC6163670 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15092014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Composition scheme for the contact networks from the teaching classroom in each educational institution, and the corresponding participation rates.
| Codified Institutions | Codified Networks | Number of Participants per Classroom | % Participation |
|---|---|---|---|
| COL1 | Network1A | 18 | 81.81% |
| Network1B | 19 | 86.36% | |
| Network1C | 20 | 80.00% | |
| COL2 | Network2D | 9 | 47.36% |
| COL3 | Network3E | 40 | 83.33% |
| Network3F | 29 | 70.73% | |
| COL4 | Network4G | 51 | 64.55% |
| Network4H | 45 | 71.42% | |
| COL5 | Network5I | 20 | 76.92% |
| Network5J | 15 | 51.72% | |
| Network5K | 10 | 55.55% | |
| Total classrooms: 11 | Total students: 276 |
COL1–COL5: Representative code name for each participating educational institution in the study. Network1A–Network5K: Representative code name for each participating network in the study.
Student distribution by participating network in the study.
| Classroom |
| % |
|---|---|---|
| Network 1A | 16 | 6.8 |
| Network 1B | 18 | 7.7 |
| Network 1C | 15 | 6.4 |
| Network 2D | 9 | 3.8 |
| Network 3E | 31 | 13.2 |
| Network 3F | 22 | 9.4 |
| Network 4G | 47 | 20 |
| Network 4H | 40 | 17 |
| Network 5I | 18 | 7.7 |
| Network 5J | 12 | 5.1 |
| Network 5K | 7 | 3.0 |
| Total | 235 | 100 |
Network1A–Network5K: Representative code name for each participating network in the study.
Figure 1Distribution by SES in our student sample.
Density and centralization for each of the studied networks.
| Density | Centralization | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Network1A | Minimum contact | 0.708 ± 0.455 | 0.333 |
| Intermediate contact | 0.275 ± 0.477 | 0.371 | |
| Maximum contact | 0.183 ± 0.387 | 0.095 | |
| Network1B | Minimum contact | 0.729 ± 0.445 | 0.305 |
| Intermediate contact | 0.392 ± 0.448 | 0.485 | |
| Maximum contact | 0.199 ± 0.400 | 0.371 | |
| Network1C | Minimum contact | 0.657 ± 0.475 | 0.396 |
| Intermediate contact | 0.214 ± 0.410 | 0.330 | |
| Maximum contact | 0.062 ± 0.241 | 0.176 | |
| Network2D | Minimum contact | 0.903 ± 0.296 | 0.125 |
| Intermediate contact | 0.542 ± 0.498 | 0.429 | |
| Maximum contact | 0.347 ± 0.476 | 0.518 | |
| Network3E | Minimum contact | 0.701 ± 0.458 | 0.320 |
| Intermediate contact | 0.259 ± 0.438 | 0.507 | |
| Maximum contact | 0.116 ± 0.320 | 0.517 | |
| Network3F | Minimum contact | 0.634 ± 0.482 | 0.402 |
| Intermediate contact | 0.249 ± 0.432 | 0.355 | |
| Maximum contact | 0.128 ± 0.334 | 0.174 | |
| Network4G | Minimum contact | 0.547 ± 0.498 | 0.428 |
| Intermediate contact | 0.211 ± 0.408 | 0.301 | |
| Maximum contact | 0.082 ± 0.275 | 0.345 | |
| Network4H | Minimum contact | 0.563 ± 0.496 | 0.460 |
| Intermediate contact | 0.221 ± 0.415 | 0.388 | |
| Maximum contact | 0.069 ± 0.253 | 0.144 | |
| Network5I | Minimum contact | 0.627 ± 0.483 | 0.419 |
| Intermediate contact | 0.239 ± 0.426 | 0.327 | |
| Maximum contact | 0.046 ± 0.209 | 0.147 | |
| Network5J | Minimum contact | 0.606 ± 0.489 | 0.473 |
| Intermediate contact | 0.220 ± 0.414 | 0.500 | |
| Maximum contact | 0.136 ± 0.343 | 0.491 | |
| Network5K | Minimum contact | 0.833 ± 0.373 | 0.233 |
| Intermediate contact | 0.524 ± 0.499 | 0.667 | |
| Maximum contact | 0.190 ± 0.393 | 0.667 |
Network1a–Network5k: Code names for the classrooms participating in the study.
Estimation of probability of the relationship between SES in the overweight adolescent and network parameters, at the minimum contact intensity level.
| Minimum Contact | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 19 | 63.3 | 11 | 36.7 | 1 | ||
|
| 24 | 58.5 | 17 | 41.5 | 1.22 | 0.46–3.22 | 0.683 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 13 | 43.3 | 17 | 56.7 | 1 | ||
|
| 22 | 53.7 | 19 | 46.3 | 1.51 | 0.58–3.90 | 0.391 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 16 | 53.3 | 14 | 46.7 | 1 | ||
|
| 21 | 51.2 | 20 | 48.8 | 1.08 | 0.42–2.79 | 0.860 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 13 | 43.3 | 17 | 56.7 | 1 | ||
|
| 22 | 53.7 | 19 | 46.3 | 1.51 | 0.58–3.90 | 0.391 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 19 | 63.3 | 11 | 36.7 | 1 | ||
|
| 24 | 58.5 | 17 | 41.5 | 1.22 | 0.46–3.22 | 0.683 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 19 | 63.3 | 11 | 36.7 | 1 | ||
|
| 20 | 48.8 | 21 | 51.2 | 1.81 | 0.69–4.74 | 0.223 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 14 | 46.7 | 16 | 53.3 | 1 | ||
|
| 22 | 53.7 | 19 | 46.3 | 1.32 | 0.51–3.40 | 0.561 |
Outdegree: nominations emitted by the individual; indegree: nominations received by the individual; degree: relational capacity; in/outcloseness: individual’s proximity to the rest of the network; betweenness: capacity for intermediation; eigenvector: prestige/influence.
Estimation of probability of the relationship between SES in the overweight adolescent and network parameters, at the intermediate contact intensity level.
| Intermediate Contact | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 19 | 63.3 | 11 | 36.7 | 1 | ||
|
| 24 | 58.5 | 17 | 41.5 | 1.22 | 0.46–3.22 | 0.683 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 18 | 60 | 12 | 40 | 1 | ||
|
| 22 | 53.7 | 19 | 46.3 | 1.29 | 0.49–3.36 | 0.595 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 15 | 50 | 15 | 50 | 1 | ||
|
| 18 | 43.9 | 23 | 56.1 | 1.27 | 0.49–3.28 | 0.611 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 16 | 53.3 | 14 | 46.7 | 1 | ||
|
| 14 | 34.1 | 27 | 65.9 | 2.20 | 0.84–5.78 | 0.106 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 17 | 56.7 | 13 | 43.3 | 1 | ||
|
| 22 | 53.7 | 19 | 46.3 | 1.12 | 0.43–2.91 | 0.801 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 20 | 66.7 | 10 | 33.3 | 1 | ||
|
| 20 | 48.8 | 21 | 51.2 | 2.10 | 0.79–5.56 | 0.133 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 18 | 60 | 12 | 40 | 1 | ||
|
| 20 | 48.8 | 21 | 51.2 | 1.57 | 0.60–4.08 | 0.349 |
Outdegree: nominations emitted by the individual; indegree: nominations received by the individual; degree: relational capacity; in/outcloseness: individual’s proximity to the rest of the network; betweenness: capacity for intermediation; eigenvector: prestige/influence.
Estimation of probability in an analysis of the relationship between SES in the overweight adolescent and network parameters, at the maximum contact intensity level
| Maximum Contact | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 18 | 60 | 12 | 40 | 1 | ||
|
| 20 | 48.8 | 21 | 51.2 | 1.57 | 0.60–4.08 | 0.349 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 13 | 43.3 | 17 | 56.7 | 1 | ||
|
| 22 | 53.7 | 19 | 46.3 | 1.51 | 0.58–3.90 | 0.390 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 15 | 50 | 15 | 50 | 1 | ||
|
| 20 | 48.8 | 21 | 51.2 | 1.05 | 0.40–2.69 | 0.919 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 13 | 43.3 | 17 | 56.7 | 1 | ||
|
| 21 | 51.2 | 20 | 48.8 | 1.37 | 0.53–3.53 | 0.511 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 16 | 53.3 | 14 | 46.7 | 1 | ||
|
| 19 | 46.3 | 22 | 53.7 | 1.32 | 0.51–3.40 | 0.561 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 17 | 56.7 | 13 | 43.3 | |||
|
| 20 | 48.8 | 21 | 51.2 | 1.37 | 0.53–3.53 | 0.511 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| 15 | 50 | 15 | 50 | 1 | ||
|
| 21 | 51.2 | 20 | 48.8 | 1.05 | 0.40–2.69 | 0.919 |
Outdegree: nominations emitted by the individual; indegree: nominations received by the individual; degree: relational capacity; in/outcloseness: individual’s proximity to the rest of the network; betweenness: capacity for intermediation; eigenvector: prestige/influence.
Figure 2Graphical representation of one of the networks in the study at the minimum contact intensity level, where node size indicates the capacity for intermediation (betweenness). Females are shown in pink, males in blue; circles represent individuals with a medium-low SES and diamonds a high SES. Graphs were produced using UCINET software [40].
Figure 3Graphical representation of one of the networks in the study at the intermediate contact intensity level, where node size indicates the degree of ties. Females are shown in pink, males in blue; circles represent individuals with a medium-low SES and diamonds a high SES. As can be seen, female adolescents with a high SES presented greatest centrality according to the degree of ties. Graphs were produced using UCINET software [40].
Figure 4Graphical representation of one of the networks in the study at the maximum contact intensity level, where node size indicates the degree of ties. Females are shown in pink, males in blue; circles represent individuals with a medium-low SES and diamonds a high SES. As can be seen, male adolescents with a high SES presented greatest centrality according to the degree of ties. Graphs were produced using UCINET software [40].
Suggestion for improvement at the macro, meso and micro action levels.
| Macro Levels | Comprehensive approaches that ensure the principles of child development (physical, cognitive, social and emotional) |
| Meso Levels | Planning and design of urban environments aimed at improving physical and psychological well-being |
| Micro Levels | Addressing the problem centered on the person |
Own compilation based on literature [63,66,67]