Shirley Aa Beresford1,2, Deborah J Bowen3, Alyson J Littman1,4,5, Denise L Albano1,2, Kc Gary Chan6, Shelby L Langer7, Wendy E Barrington8,1, Donald L Patrick9,2. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. 2. Cancer Prevention Program, Fred Hutch, Seattle, USA. 3. Department of Bioethics & Humanities, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. 4. Seattle Epidemiologic Research and Information Center (ERIC), VA Puget Sound Health Care System, USA. 5. Center for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, USA. 6. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. 7. Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Arizona State University, Phoenix, USA. 8. Department of Psychosocial & Community Health, Washington, Seattle, USA. 9. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity rates differ between Hispanic and White (non-Hispanic) women in the United States, with higher rates among Hispanic women. Socioeconomic processes contribute to this disparity both at the individual and the environmental level. Understanding these complex relationships requires multilevel analyses within cohorts of women that have a shared environment. In population-based samples of Hispanic and White (non-Hispanic) women from the same neighborhoods, we evaluated within each ethnic group a) The association of individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) with body mass index (BMI); and b) The additional contribution of neighborhood-level measures of SES. METHODS: Using population-based multi-stage sampling methods, we oversampled low SES and Hispanic block groups. During household screening, we identified women aged 30 to 50 years. Among White women, we specifically oversampled women with low educational levels. 515 Hispanic and 503 White women completed baseline. Height and weight were measured. Baseline surveys, in Spanish and English, included four measures of SES. Three measures of area-level SES were examined. Analysis of loge BMI on each SES measure used linear mixed models, incorporating design effects. RESULTS: Among White women, low education, social status, and neighborhood SES were associated with higher BMI (p < 0.001, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.05, respectively), independent of other SES measures. Although the highest grouped category of education, income and subjective social status within the Hispanic cohort had the lowest mean estimated BMI, the point estimates across categories were not monotonic, and had wide confidence intervals. As a result, in contrast to the findings among White women, no statistically significant associations were found between BMI and measures of SES among Hispanic women. DISCUSSION: Neighborhood and individual measures of SES operate differently in Hispanic compared with White women. We had assumed the measures we included to be most salient and operate similarly for both groups of women. Rather the salient factors for Hispanic women have yet to be identified. Improved understanding may ultimately inform the design of culturally-relevant multilevel obesity prevention strategies.
BACKGROUND: Obesity rates differ between Hispanic and White (non-Hispanic) women in the United States, with higher rates among Hispanic women. Socioeconomic processes contribute to this disparity both at the individual and the environmental level. Understanding these complex relationships requires multilevel analyses within cohorts of women that have a shared environment. In population-based samples of Hispanic and White (non-Hispanic) women from the same neighborhoods, we evaluated within each ethnic group a) The association of individual-level socioeconomic status (SES) with body mass index (BMI); and b) The additional contribution of neighborhood-level measures of SES. METHODS: Using population-based multi-stage sampling methods, we oversampled low SES and Hispanic block groups. During household screening, we identified women aged 30 to 50 years. Among White women, we specifically oversampled women with low educational levels. 515 Hispanic and 503 White women completed baseline. Height and weight were measured. Baseline surveys, in Spanish and English, included four measures of SES. Three measures of area-level SES were examined. Analysis of loge BMI on each SES measure used linear mixed models, incorporating design effects. RESULTS: Among White women, low education, social status, and neighborhood SES were associated with higher BMI (p < 0.001, p < 0.0001, and p < 0.05, respectively), independent of other SES measures. Although the highest grouped category of education, income and subjective social status within the Hispanic cohort had the lowest mean estimated BMI, the point estimates across categories were not monotonic, and had wide confidence intervals. As a result, in contrast to the findings among White women, no statistically significant associations were found between BMI and measures of SES among Hispanic women. DISCUSSION: Neighborhood and individual measures of SES operate differently in Hispanic compared with White women. We had assumed the measures we included to be most salient and operate similarly for both groups of women. Rather the salient factors for Hispanic women have yet to be identified. Improved understanding may ultimately inform the design of culturally-relevant multilevel obesity prevention strategies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Body Mass Index; Education; Neighborhood; Obesity; Socioeconomic status
Authors: A V Diez-Roux; C I Kiefe; D R Jacobs; M Haan; S A Jackson; F J Nieto; C C Paton; R Schulz; A V Roux Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: J P Mackenbach; G J Borsboom; W J Nusselder; C W Looman; C T Schrijvers Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Youngmee Kim; Alberto R Ramos; Charles S Carver; Amanda Ting; Kaitlin Hahn; Yasmin Mossavar-Rahmani; Linda C Gallo; Kimberly L Savin; Xiaoyu Li; Frank J Penedo; Phyllis C Zee Journal: Behav Sleep Med Date: 2021-07-24 Impact factor: 3.492