| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE |
At the time of the study, R. Fuhrer was with the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, Great Britain, and Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Paris, France. M. J. Shipley is with the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London. J. F. Chastang, A. Schmaus, I. Niedhammer, and M. Goldberg are with INSERM, St. Maurice, France. S. A. Stansfeld and M. G. Marmot are with the International Centre for Health and Society, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London.
Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to R. Fuhrer, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, 1020 Pine Ave W, Montreal QC H3A 1A2 Canada (e-mail:
rebecca.fuhrer{at}mcgill.ca).
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Objectives. We examined whether the social gradient for measures of morbidity is comparable in English and French public employees and investigated risk factors that may explain this gradient.
Methods. This longitudinal study of 2 occupational cohorts—5825 London civil servants and 6818 French office-based employees—used 2 health outcomes: long spells of sickness absence during a 4-year follow-up and self-reported health.
Results. Strong social gradients in health were observed in both cohorts. Health behaviors showed different relations with socioeconomic position in the 2 samples. Psychosocial work characteristics showed strong gradients in both cohorts. Cohort-specific significant risk factors explained between 12% and 56% of the gradient in sickness absence and self-reported health.
Conclusions. Our cross-cultural comparison suggests that some common susceptibility may underlie the social gradient in health and disease, which explains why inequalities occur in cultures with different patterns of morbidity and mortality.
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
This study examined—in 2 cultures with many similarities but also many differences (i.e., England and France)—the social gradient in health and possible risk factors in order to assess the degree of consistency of explanatory mechanisms. Life expectancy for men is virtually the same in both countries (
74 years), although for women, it is about 3 years longer in France (83 years). Social inequalities in mortality and morbidity exist in both countries,13 but cause-specific patterns of mortality differ between England and France (cardiovascular disease being most prevalent in British men and neoplasms being most prevalent in French men). Given this pattern, should we expect to find similar social gradients in risk factors for poor health across different cultures, or does the answer lie with culture-specific risk factors?
We explored the relations between socioeconomic position, health, and possible risk factors in 2 comparable samples on either side of the English Channel: the Whitehall II Study of British civil servants14 and the GAZEL Study of personnel at the Gas and Electricity Public Utilities of France.15 Many measures of morbidity used were identical or very similar, as were potential confounders and mediators. The objectives of this study were to determine (1) whether the social gradient for measures of morbidity and risk factors found among British civil servants was also observed among French public employees and (2) whether the same factors contributed to the gradient in health across the studies.
(Note. In this article the terminology of the Whitehall II Study is used: "spells" refers to periods of time, "sickness absence" to illness-related absence from work.)
|
METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
8 days) and self-reported health (average or worse) as measures of morbidity. The extremely poor and extremely wealthy sectors of society were not represented in either cohort; however, a wide income range was found in both samples.
Measures
Health outcomes.
Long spells of sickness absence ( 8 days) requiring a doctor’s certification were obtained from administrative computerized records. Follow-up extended to 4 years from baseline measures; subjects were censored on the date they retired, left the company, or died, whichever occurred first. Sickness absence was expressed as rates per 100 person-years, and age-adjusted rates were calculated by direct standardization.
Self-reported health. In the Whitehall II Study, self-reported health was measured as self-perceived health over the preceding 12 months (very good to very poor on a 5-point Likert scale, dichotomized to average or worse); in the GAZEL Study, the participant was asked to assess his or her health in general on an 8-point analogue scale (very good to very bad, dichotomized to average or worse).
Explanatory factors. The following measures were used to explore mechanisms likely to explain the health gradient. Proxy measures of early life environment were father’s occupation (Registrar General’s Social Class manual vs nonmanual for the Whitehall II Study; blue-collar worker vs all others for the GAZEL Study), height as a proxy for diet and other factors considered to influence physical development, and educational attainment. Smoking, alcohol consumption, and dietary habits (daily intake of fresh fruit and vegetables) were used as indicators of health behaviors. Body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure were used as indicators of physiological activity that are associated with disease risk and that may reflect accumulated wear and tear on the body. Psychosocial environment outside the workplace reflects the structure, support, and stressors to which the subject is exposed; psychosocial environment was measured by marital status, social network, frequency of social contacts, and a life event score based on 6 life-threatening or chronic stressor events.16 Psychosocial work characteristics were based on questions adapted from Karasek’s occupational strain measures.17 We used the subscales on psychological job demands and decision latitude in the workplace,18,19 categorized by sex- and cohortspecific tertile, for each scale.
Statistical methods. Men and women were partitioned into 2 and 3 groups, respectively, based on 5-year age groups. Age-adjusted means and proportions were calculated by direct standardization, giving equal weight to each age group. Tests for trend, adjusting for age, were computed with Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel tests for dichotomous outcomes and with linear regression for continuous outcomes. Models for dichotomous variables were fitted with logistic regression, whereas Poisson regression was used for sickness absence and linear regression for continuous variables. Differences between studies in trends across employment grades were tested by fitting a trend-by-study interaction term. The capability of this term to explain the gradient in employment grade was assessed by the percentage change in the rate (or odds) ratios for employment grade after adjustment for the risk factors. Analyses were repeated with the relative index of inequality for employment grade,20,21 a measure of the degree of inequality, which can be interpreted as the ratio (rate or odds) for subjects at the bottom vs the top of the socioeconomic hierarchy. SAS22 and Stata23 statistical software were used for all statistical analyses.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
presents demographic characteristics, health outcomes, and selected risk factors, by employment grade and sex. The distribution of grade differed by sex within each cohort (
22 test for differences in proportion, P < .001) and also differed by cohort for both sexes. Subjects in lower compared with higher employment grades were older in the Whitehall II Study but were younger in the GAZEL Study. The table shows a significant linear trend by sex and cohort for each health outcome, with higher levels of morbidity in lower grades. Early childhood environment and adult psychosocial work characteristics showed similar trends, but the magnitude of these gradients differed between the cohorts. Some of the explanatory variables followed the same gradient in both cohorts (waist-to-hip ratio, P for trend: Whitehall II Study, < .001, GAZEL Study, < .002; P for interaction = .13 [not shown]), whereas opposite trends were observed for measures of health behaviors and social environment: tobacco and fruit and vegetable consumption followed a social gradient in the Whitehall II Study that was not observed in the GAZEL Study. Sex differences were observed primarily for health behaviors and social environment. These findings persisted regardless of which measure of grade was used—categorically-defined employment grade or relative index of inequality.
|
presents the age- and fully-adjusted risk estimates for grade of employment and health outcomes (long spells of sickness absence and poor self-reported health). Fully adjusted models used cohort- and sex-specific explanatory variables that showed a significant gradient in employment grade (Note: waist-to-hip ratio was not included in the multivariate models because it was unavailable for half of the GAZEL cohort, but sensitivity analyses on the subsample with these data did not alter the results). After adjusting for cohort- and sex-specific best predictors (P < .05) as explanatory measures, between 12% and 21% of the gradient in employment grade (relative index of inequality) in sickness absence was explained. For self-reported health, the age-adjusted odds ratios were in the range of 1.6 to 3.2, with steeper gradients for the Whitehall II Study than for the GAZEL Study. Despite larger reductions in selfreported health for the Whitehall II Study (men: 56%; women: 42%; 27% for GAZEL women and no change in GAZEL men), these measures explained only part of the gradient, and significant employment-grade differences in health persisted in both cohorts. Limiting the analysis to those variables that showed a social gradient in both cohorts (P < .20) marginally weakened the gradient for sickness absence and decreased it by more than half for self-reported health in the Whitehall II Study, although not in the GAZEL Study.
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
8 days) and selfreported health. The magnitude of the grade effect varied according to the measure of morbidity, with a much steeper gradient observed in both cohorts for long spells of sickness absence than for self-reported health. This variation may reflect the view that sickness absence is a measure of social, physical, and mental health,24 and, as such, may be caused partially by illness and partially by a response to illness based on personal and societal attitudes that may vary by socioeconomic position and social policies. Because we used prospectively measured and doctor-certified long spells of absence from employer’s databases, we minimized any reporting bias that may have influenced findings obtained for self-reported health. These results are informative about what factors may or may not be important in explaining social gradients in disease and poor health. In the presence of a similar social gradient in ill health in 2 culturally different cohorts, the different distributions of smoking, alcohol intake, and fruit and vegetable intake make it unlikely that these are major explanatory variables for the social gradient. On the contrary, the consistency of the gradient in early childhood environment factors and adult psychosocial work characteristics makes it plausible that these factors have universal importance in explaining social gradients in poor health. The explanatory power of early childhood environment factors and adult psychosocial work characteristics was moderate but greater in the Whitehall II Study, a finding that may reflect cultural differences in the subjective evaluation of self-reported health.
One limitation of the study was the measure of socioeconomic position. Both samples had internally defined employment grade systems, and categorization into 3 groups may mean that the grades were not comparable across the cohorts or that relative inequalities among progressively lower grades did not follow the same slope. Possible differences in this measure could give rise to divergent results.25 However, results from relative index of inequality analyses, which take into account the grade distributions, did not differ from those in Table 2
, indicating that the findings were not due to different distributions of grade across the cohorts.
Another limitation was the nature of the study samples. Both were occupational cohorts of office-based personnel. They are not necessarily representative of working populations of either country. Nonetheless, the measures of socioeconomic position were hierarchical and therefore allowed us to study how social position influences health, even within such relatively homogeneous samples.
Factors thought to play a major role in generating health inequalities in Britain—smoking and low consumption of fruit and vegetables, for example—did not show social gradients in this French cohort comparable to those in the Whitehall II sample. Yet, as this study illustrates, both cohorts had a similar social gradient in morbidity. Does this mean that smoking and diet are not causes of the social gradient but are merely confounders? Alternatively, is there 1 set of causes of the social gradient operating in Britain and a different set in France? Given the pervasiveness of health inequalities across cultures, the latter explanation is somewhat unsatisfactory.26 A third possibility is that some common susceptibility underlies the social gradient in health and disease that explains why inequalities occur in cultures with different patterns of morbidity and mortality. This susceptibility may be influenced by early environment or may determine the experience of psychosocial factors. Precise diseases that contribute to the social gradient will depend on culturespecific factors. Helping sort through these different types of questions may be the real contribution of cross-national comparative research.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank all participating civil service departments and their welfare, personnel, and establishment officers; the Occupational Health and Safety Agency; the Council of Civil Service Unions; all participating civil servants in the Whitehall II Study; and all members of the Whitehall II Study team. The authors thank the Medical Committee of Electricité de France–Gas de France, all the participating workers of the GAZEL cohort, and all members of the GAZEL Study team who made the study possible.
An earlier version of this study was presented to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Midlife Development (June 1997) and at the International Congress of Behavioral Medicine (August 1998).
Human Participant Protection
Ethical approval for the Whitehall II Study was obtained from the University College London Medical School Committee on the ethics of human research. The GAZEL study was approved by the ethics review committee of l’Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM).
|
Footnotes |
|---|
Accepted for publication August 15, 2001.
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
2. Lynch JW, Kaplan GA, Salonen JT. Why do poor people behave badly? Variation in adult health behaviours and psychosocial characteristics by stages of the socioeconomic lifecourse. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:809–819.
3. Lantz PM, House JS, Lepkowski JM, Williams DR, Mero RP, Chen J. Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality. JAMA. 1998;279:1703–1708.
4. Barker DJ. The fetal and infant origins of adult disease. BMJ. 1990;301:1111
5. Kuh D, Ben-Shlomo Y. A Life Course Approach to Chronic Disease Epidemiology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1997.
6. Bunker JP. Medicine matters after all. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1995;29:105–112.[Medline]
7. Goddard M, Smith P. Equity of Access to Health Care. York, England: University of York; 1998. Centre for Health Economics Occasional Paper.
8. Turner RJ, Marino F. Social support and social structure: a descriptive epidemiology. J Health Soc Behav. 1994;35:193–212.[Medline]
9. Stansfeld SA. Social support and social cohesion. In: Marmot MG, Wilkinson R, eds. Social Determinants of Health. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1999:155–178.
10. Marmot M, Bosma H, Hemingway H, Brunner EJ, Stansfeld SA. Contribution of job control and other risk factors to social variations in coronary heart disease incidence. Lancet. 1997;350:235–239.[Medline]
11. Bosma H, Peter R, Siegrist J, Marmot MG. Alternative job stress models and the risk of coronary heart disease. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:68–74.
12. Lynch JW, Davey-Smith G, Kaplan GA, House JS. Income inequality and mortality: importance to health of individual income, psychosocial environment, or material conditions. BMJ. 2000;320:1200–1204.
13. Mackenbach JP, Kunst AE, Cavelaars AE, Groenhof F, Geurts JJ. Socioeconomic inequalities in morbidity and mortality in Western Europe. The EU Working Group on Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health. Lancet. 1997;349:1655–1659.[Medline]
14. Marmot MG, Davey Smith G, Stansfeld SA, et al. Health inequalities among British civil servants: the Whitehall II Study. Lancet. 1991;337:1387–1393.[Medline]
15. Goldberg M, Leclerc A, Chastang JF, et al. Mise en place d’une cohorte epidemiologique a Electricité De France–Gaz de France: principales caracteristiques de l’echantillon. Revue d’Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique. 1990;38:378–380.
16. Pearlin LI, Lieberman MA, Menaghan EG, Mullan JT. The stress process. J Health Soc Behav. 1981;22:337–356.[Medline]
17. Karasek RA. Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: implications for job design. Adm Sci Q. 1979;24:285–308.
18. North FM, Syme SL, Feeney A, Shipley M, Marmot M. Psychosocial work environment and sickness absence among British civil servants: the Whitehall II Study. Am J Public Health. 1996;86:332–340.
19. Niedhammer I, Bugel I, Goldberg M, Leclerc A, Gueguen A. Psychosocial factors at work and sickness absence in the GAZEL cohort: a prospective study. Occup Environ Med. 1998;55:735–741.[Abstract]
20. Pamuk ER. Social class inequality in mortality from 1921 to 1972 in England and Wales. Popul Stud. 1985;39:17–31.
21. Mackenbach JP, Kunst AE. Measuring the magnitude of socioeconomic inequalities in health: an overview of available measures illustrated with two examples from Europe. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:757–771.
22. SAS/STAT User’s Guide. 2nd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1990.
23. Stata Statistical Software, Release 5.0 [computer program]. College Station, Tex: Stata Corp; 1997.
24. Marmot MG, Feeney A, Shipley MJ, North F, Syme LS. Sickness absence as a measure of health status and functioning: from the UK Whitehall II Study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995;49:124–130.[Abstract]
25. Kunst AE, Groenhof F, Mackenbach JP, Health JW. Occupational class and cause specific mortality in middle aged men in 11 European countries: comparison of population based studies. EU Working Group on Socioeconomic Inequalities in Health. BMJ. 1998;316:1636–1642.
26. Najman JM. General or cause-specific factors in explanations of class inequalities in health. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:296–297.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  N. Darmon and A. Drewnowski Does social class predict diet quality? Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, May 1, 2008; 87(5): 1107 - 1117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. L. Reed, J. C. Anthony, and N. Breslau Incidence of Drug Problems in Young Adults Exposed to Trauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Do Early Life Experiences and Predispositions Matter? Arch Gen Psychiatry, December 1, 2007; 64(12): 1435 - 1442. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 W. Sabbah, G. Tsakos, T. Chandola, A. Sheiham, and R.G. Watt Social Gradients in Oral and General Health J. Dent. Res., October 1, 2007; 86(10): 992 - 996. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. E. Maki and P. T. Martikainen Socioeconomic differences in suicide mortality by sex in Finland in 1971--2000: A register-based study of trends, levels, and life expectancy differences Scand J Public Health, August 1, 2007; 35(4): 387 - 395. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Shiels and M. B. Gabbay Patient, clinician, and general practice factors in long-term certified sickness Scand J Public Health, May 1, 2007; 35(3): 250 - 256. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Goldberg, A. Leclerc, S. Bonenfant, J. F. Chastang, A. Schmaus, N. Kaniewski, and M. Zins Cohort profile: the GAZEL Cohort Study Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2007; 36(1): 32 - 39. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Hyde, H. Jakub, M. Melchior, F. Van Oort, and S. Weyers Comparison of the effects of low childhood socioeconomic position and low adulthood socioeconomic position on self rated health in four European studies. J. Epidemiol. Community Health, October 1, 2006; 60(10): 882 - 886. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Singh-Manoux, P. Martikainen, J. Ferrie, M. Zins, M. Marmot, and M. Goldberg What does self rated health measure? Results from the British Whitehall II and French Gazel cohort studies. J. Epidemiol. Community Health, April 1, 2006; 60(4): 364 - 372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. D. Barger Do Psychological Characteristics Explain Socioeconomic Stratification of Self-rated Health? J Health Psychol, January 1, 2006; 11(1): 21 - 35. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Adams, M. White, and D. Forman Is the rate of biological aging, as measured by age at diagnosis of cancer, socioeconomically patterned? J. Epidemiol. Community Health, February 1, 2005; 59(2): 146 - 151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Khatun, C. Ahlgren, and A. Hammarstrom The influence of factors identified in adolescence and early adulthood on social class inequities of musculoskeletal disorders at age 30: a prospective population-based cohort study Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2004; 33(6): 1353 - 1360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Allebeck and A. Mastekaasa Chapter 5. Risk factors for sick leave - general studies Scand J Public Health, October 1, 2004; 32(5): 49 - 108. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. H. Pensola and P. Martikainen Effect of living conditions in the parental home and youth paths on the social class differences in mortality among women Scand J Public Health, December 1, 2003; 31(6): 428 - 438. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
