Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular risk in urban South Asia: The CARRS Study.

BACKGROUND: Although South Asians experience cardiovascular disease (CVD) and risk factors at an early age, the distribution of CVD risks across the socioeconomic spectrum remains unclear. METHODS: We analysed the 2011 Centre for Cardiometabolic Risk Reduction in South Asia survey data including 16,288 non-pregnant adults (≥20 years) that are representative of Chennai and Delhi, India, and Karachi, Pakistan. Socioeconomic status (SES) was defined by highest education (primary schooling, high/secondary schooling, college graduate or greater); wealth tertiles (low, middle, high household assets) and occupation (not working outside home, semi/unskilled, skilled, white-collar work). We estimated age and sex-standardized prevalence of behavioural (daily fruit/vegetables; tobacco use), weight (body mass index; waist-to-height ratio) and metabolic risk factors (diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia; hypo-HDL; and hypertriglyceridaemia) by each SES category. RESULTS: Across cities, 61.2% and 16.1% completed secondary and college educations, respectively; 52.8% reported not working, 22.9% were unskilled; 21.3% were skilled and 3.1% were white-collar workers. For behavioural risk factors, low fruit/vegetable intake, smoked and smokeless tobacco use were more prevalent in lowest education, wealthy and occupation (for men only) groups compared to higher SES counterparts, while weight-related risks (body mass index 25.0-29.9 and ≥30 kg/m(2); waist-to-height ratio ≥0.5) were more common in higher educated and wealthy groups, and technical/professional men. For metabolic risks, a higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemias was observed in more educated and affluent groups, with unclear patterns across occupation groups. CONCLUSIONS: SES-CVD patterns are heterogeneous, suggesting customized interventions for different SES groups may be warranted. Different behavioural, weight, and metabolic risk factor prevalence patterns across SES indicators may signal on-going epidemiological transition in South Asia.

Patterns of multisite pain and associations with risk factors.

To explore definitions for multisite pain, and compare associations with risk factors for different patterns of musculoskeletal pain, we analysed cross-sectional data from the Cultural and Psychosocial Influences on Disability (CUPID) study. The study sample comprised 12,410 adults aged 20-59 years from 47 occupational groups in 18 countries. A standardised questionnaire was used to collect information about pain in the past month at each of 10 anatomical sites, and about potential risk factors. Associations with pain outcomes were assessed by Poisson regression, and characterised by prevalence rate ratios (PRRs). Extensive pain, affecting 6-10 anatomical sites, was reported much more frequently than would be expected if the occurrence of pain at each site were independent (674 participants vs 41.9 expected). In comparison with pain involving only 1-3 sites, it showed much stronger associations (relative to no pain) with risk factors such as female sex (PRR 1.6 vs 1.1), older age (PRR 2.6 vs 1.1), somatising tendency (PRR 4.6 vs 1.3), and exposure to multiple physically stressing occupational activities (PRR 5.0 vs 1.4). After adjustment for number of sites with pain, these risk factors showed no additional association with a distribution of pain that was widespread according to the frequently used American College of Rheumatology criteria. Our analysis supports the classification of pain at multiple anatomical sites simply by the number of sites affected, and suggests that extensive pain differs importantly in its associations with risk factors from pain that is limited to only a small number of anatomical sites.

Disabling musculoskeletal pain in working populations: is it the job, the person, or the culture?

To compare the prevalence of disabling low back pain (DLBP) and disabling wrist/hand pain (DWHP) among groups of workers carrying out similar physical activities in different cultural environments, and to explore explanations for observed differences, we conducted a cross-sectional survey in 18 countries. Standardised questionnaires were used to ascertain pain that interfered with everyday activities and exposure to possible risk factors in 12,426 participants from 47 occupational groups (mostly nurses and office workers). Associations with risk factors were assessed by Poisson regression. The 1-month prevalence of DLBP in nurses varied from 9.6% to 42.6%, and that of DWHP in office workers from 2.2% to 31.6%. Rates of disabling pain at the 2 anatomical sites covaried (r = 0.76), but DLBP tended to be relatively more common in nurses and DWHP in office workers. Established risk factors such as occupational physical activities, psychosocial aspects of work, and tendency to somatise were confirmed, and associations were found also with adverse health beliefs and group awareness of people outside work with musculoskeletal pain. However, after allowance for these risk factors, an up-to 8-fold difference in prevalence remained. Systems of compensation for work-related illness and financial support for health-related incapacity for work appeared to have little influence on the occurrence of symptoms. Our findings indicate large international variation in the prevalence of disabling forearm and back pain among occupational groups carrying out similar tasks, which is only partially explained by the personal and socioeconomic risk factors that were analysed.