Genetic vulnerability to diabetes and obesity: does education offset the risk?

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity has recently increased dramatically. These common diseases are likely to arise from the interaction of multiple genetic, socio-demographic and environmental risk factors. While previous research has found genetic risk and education to be strong predictors of these diseases, few studies to date have examined their joint effects. This study investigates whether education modifies the association between genetic background and risk for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. Using data from non-Hispanic Whites in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS, n = 8398), we tested whether education modifies genetic risk for obesity and T2D, offsetting genetic effects; whether this effect is larger for individuals who have high risk for other (unobserved) reasons, i.e., at higher quantiles of HbA1c and BMI; and whether effects differ by gender. We measured T2D risk using Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level, and obesity risk using body-mass index (BMI). We constructed separate genetic risk scores (GRS) for obesity and diabetes respectively based on the most current available information on the single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) confirmed as genome-wide significant predictors for BMI (29 SNPs) and diabetes risk (39 SNPs). Linear regression models with years of schooling indicate that the effect of genetic risk on HbA1c is smaller among people with more years of schooling and larger among those with less than a high school (HS) degree compared to HS degree-holders. Quantile regression models show that the GRS × education effect systematically increased along the HbA1c outcome distribution; for example the GRS × years of education interaction coefficient was -0.01 (95% CI = -0.03, 0.00) at the 10th percentile compared to -0.03 (95% CI = -0.07, 0.00) at the 90th percentile. These results suggest that education may be an important socioeconomic source of heterogeneity in responses to genetic vulnerability to T2D.

Educational attainment and obesity: a systematic review.

Although previous systematic reviews considered the relationship between socioeconomic status and obesity, almost 200 peer-reviewed articles have been published since the last review on that topic, and this paper focuses specifically on education, which has different implications. The authors systematically review the peer-reviewed literature from around the world considering the association between educational attainment and obesity. Databases from public health and medicine, education, psychology, economics, and other social sciences were searched, and articles published in English, French, Portuguese and Spanish were included. This paper includes 289 articles that report on 410 populations in 91 countries. The relationship between educational attainment and obesity was modified by both gender and the country's economic development level: an inverse association was more common in studies of higher-income countries and a positive association was more common in lower-income countries, with stronger social patterning among women. Relatively few studies reported on lower-income countries, controlled for a comprehensive set of potential confounding variables and/or attempted to assess causality through the use of quasi-experimental designs. Future research should address these gaps to understand if the relationship between educational attainment and obesity may be causal, thus supporting education policy as a tool for obesity prevention.

Comparing individual- and area-based socioeconomic measures for the surveillance of health disparities: A multilevel analysis of Massachusetts births, 1989-1991.

The absence of individual-level socioeconomic information in most US health surveillance data necessitates using area-based socioeconomic measures (ABSMs) to monitor health inequalities. Using the 1989-1991 birth weight data from Massachusetts, the authors compared estimates of health disparities detected with census tract- and block group-level ABSMs pertaining to poverty and education, as well as parental education, both independently and together. In separate models, adjusted for infant's sex, mother's age, and parents' race/ethnicity, worst-off categories of census tract ABSMs and parental education had a comparable birth weight deficit of approximately 70 g. Similar results were observed for low birth weight (<2,500 g), with worst-off categories of census tract ABSMs and parental education having an odds ratio of approximately 1.37 (p < 0.001). In mutually adjusted models for birth weight and low birth weight, census tract ABSMs still detected an effect estimate nearly 50% of that detected by parental education. Additionally, census tract ABSMs detected socioeconomic gradients in birth weight among births to mothers aged less than 25 years, an age group in which educational attainment is unlikely to be completed. These results suggest that aptly chosen ABSMs can be used to monitor socioeconomic inequalities in health. The risk, if any, in the absence of individual-level socioeconomic information is a conservative estimate of socioeconomic inequalities in health.

Assessing health impact assessment: multidisciplinary and international perspectives.

Health impact assessment (HIA) seeks to expand evaluation of policy and programmes in all sectors, both private and public, to include their impact on population health. While the idea that the public's health is affected by a broad array of social and economic policies is not new and dates back well over two centuries, what is new is the notion-increasingly adopted by major health institutions, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Kingdom National Health Services (NHS)-that health should be an explicit consideration when evaluating all public policies. In this article, it is argued that while HIA has the potential to enhance recognition of societal determinants of health and of intersectoral responsibility for health, its pitfalls warrant critical attention. Greater clarity is required regarding criteria for initiating, conducting, and completing HIA, including rules pertaining to decision making, enforcement, compliance, plus paying for their conduct. Critical debate over the promise, process, and pitfalls of HIA needs to be informed by multiple disciplines and perspectives from diverse people and regions of the world.