| Literature DB >> 35972913 |
Archana B Patel1,2, Carla M Bann3, Cherryl S Kolhe1, Adrien Lokangaka4, Antoinette Tshefu4, Melissa Bauserman5, Lester Figueroa6, Nancy F Krebs7, Fabian Esamai8, Sherri Bucher9, Sarah Saleem10, Robert L Goldenberg11, Elwyn Chomba12, Waldemar A Carlo13, Shivaprasad Goudar14, Richard J Derman15, Marion Koso-Thomas16, Elizabeth M McClure3, Patricia L Hibberd17.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, socioeconomic status (SES) is an important health determinant across a range of health conditions and diseases. However, measuring SES within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) can be particularly challenging given the variation and diversity of LMIC populations.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35972913 PMCID: PMC9380930 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272712
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1CONSORT diagram of participant flow.
Sample demographic characteristics by Socioeconomic Status (SES).
| All (N = 87,923) | Low (N = 38,373) | Moderate (N = 28,448) | High (N = 21,102) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
|
| |||||
| 0 | 29,125 (33) | 10,135 (26) | 9,611 (34) | 9,379 (44) | < 0.001 |
| 1–2 | 36,388 (41) | 13,802 (36) | 12,762 (45) | 9,824 (47) | |
| 3+ | 22,383 (25) | 14,413 (38) | 6,072 (21) | 1,898 (9) | |
|
| |||||
| 0 | 15,717 (18) | 10,370 (27) | 3,988 (14) | 1,359 (6) | < 0.001 |
| 1–6 | 18,514 (21) | 10,152 (26) | 6,216 (22) | 2,146 (10) | |
| 7–12 | 46,909 (53) | 16,912 (44) | 16,755 (59) | 13,242 (63) | |
| > 12 | 6,763 (8) | 930 (2) | 1,485 (5) | 4,348 (21) | |
|
| 72,088 (82) | 29,430 (77) | 23,326 (82) | 19,332 (92) | < 0.001 |
|
| |||||
| Underweight | 13,749 (16) | 4,149 (11) | 4,903 (17) | 4,697 (22) | < 0.001 |
| Normal | 53,039 (61) | 26,809 (71) | 15,201 (54) | 11,029 (52) | |
| Overweight | 15,833 (18) | 5,970 (16) | 6,105 (22) | 3,758 (18) | |
| Obese | 4,882 (6) | 1,082 (3) | 2,192 (8) | 1,608 (8) | |
|
| |||||
| DRC | 11,943 (14) | 11,585 (30) | 356 (1) | 2 (0) | < 0.001 |
| Guatemala | 16,760 (19) | 3,096 (8) | 8,503 (30) | 5,161 (24) | |
| India (Belagavi) | 11,650 (13) | 1,055 (3) | 5,145 (18) | 5,450 (26) | |
| India (Nagpur) | 13,675 (16) | 1,126 (3) | 4,875 (17) | 7,674 (36) | |
| Kenya | 13,662 (16) | 11,171 (29) | 2,105 (7) | 386 (2) | |
| Pakistan | 8,602 (10) | 4,495 (12) | 2,539 (9) | 1,568 (7) | |
| Zambia | 11,631 (13) | 5,845 (15) | 4,925 (17) | 861 (4) |
Note: SES scores are categorized into levels as follows: Low (0–32), Moderate (33–66), and High (67–100). p-value is based on a chi-square test comparing demographics across SES levels.
Mortality rates per 1,000 by site and SES.
| Linear Trend Test | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcome | Low | Moderate | High | Z-statistic | p-value |
|
| |||||
| Democratic Republic of the Congo | 37.3 | 37.9 | — | — | — |
| Guatemala | 24.1 | 18.2 | 11.2 | 4.41 | < 0.001 |
| India (Belagavi) | 38.4 | 22.5 | 21.7 | 2.31 | 0.021 |
| India (Nagpur) | 27.4 | 18.8 | 16.2 | 2.41 | 0.016 |
| Kenya | 17.9 | 22.8 | — | — | — |
| Pakistan | 52.0 | 50.5 | 30.9 | 2.83 | 0.005 |
| Zambia | 18.8 | 17.6 | 21.4 | -0.05 | 0.963 |
|
| |||||
| Democratic Republic of the Congo | 57.2 | 72.3 | — | — | — |
| Guatemala | 44.6 | 33.6 | 22.4 | 5.36 | < 0.001 |
| India (Belagavi) | 62.4 | 39.6 | 37.9 | 2.62 | 0.009 |
| India (Nagpur) | 44.5 | 35.5 | 28.4 | 3.09 | 0.002 |
| Kenya | 29.7 | 31.6 | — | — | — |
| Pakistan | 98.9 | 93.1 | 81.4 | 1.76 | 0.078 |
| Zambia | 28.4 | 24.4 | 30.0 | 0.55 | 0.589 |
|
| |||||
| Democratic Republic of the Congo | 21.1 | 33.1 | — | — | — |
| Guatemala | 33.2 | 22.8 | 13.9 | 5.58 | < 0.001 |
| India (Belagavi) | 28.3 | 20.7 | 18.9 | 1.65 | 0.100 |
| India (Nagpur) | 24.3 | 19.4 | 15.5 | 2.32 | 0.020 |
| Kenya | 13.5 | 9.4 | — | — | — |
| Pakistan | 55.7 | 54.1 | 59.2 | -0.34 | 0.736 |
| Zambia | 11.8 | 8.4 | 12.1 | 1.00 | 0.316 |
Note: P-value is based on a two-sided Cochran-Armitage trend test of the proportions of participants experiencing each outcome. Proportions were converted to mortality rates per 1,000 to allow for comparisons with other sources of country-level statistics. Mortality rate was not estimated for high SES for the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kenya due to the small number of participants (< 5%) with high SES at these sites.
Fig 2Adjusted relative risks (95% confidence intervals) of outcomes by SES: All sites.
Relative risks are adjusted for SES category, site, maternal age, parity, formal education level, BMI category, and facility birth.