PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Wright, Liam
AU  - Staatz, Charis Bridger
AU  - Silverwood, Richard J
AU  - Bann, David
TI  - Trends across time in socioeconomic differences in body mass index: a comparison of population and individual-level approaches
AID  - 10.1101/2023.05.24.23290477
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.05.24.23290477
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/29/2023.05.24.23290477.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/05/29/2023.05.24.23290477.full
AB  - Background Socioeconomic differences in body mass index (BMI) have widened alongside the obesity epidemic. However, the utility of socioeconomic position (SEP) indicators at the individual level remains uncertain, as does the potential temporal variation in their predictive value. Examining this is important in light of the increasing incorporation of SEP indicators into predictive algorithms and the possibility that SEP has become a more important predictor of BMI over time. We thus investigated SEP differences in BMI over three decades of the obesity epidemic in England and compared population-wide (SEP group differences in mean BMI) and individual-level (out-of-sample prediction of individuals’ BMI) approaches.Methods We used repeated cross-sectional data from the Health Survey for England, 1991-2019. BMI (kg/m2) was measured objectively, and SEP was measured via educational attainment and neighborhood index of deprivation (IMD). We ran random forest models for each survey year and measure of SEP adjusting for age and sex.Results The mean and variance of BMI increased within each SEP group over the study period. Mean differences in BMI by SEP group also increased across time: differences between lowest and highest education groups were 1.0 kg/m2 (0.4, 1.6) in 1991 and 1.5 kg/m2 (0.9, 1.8) in 2019. At the individual level, the predictive capacity of SEP was low, though increased in later years: including education in models improved predictive accuracy (mean absolute error) by 0.14% (−0.9, 1.08) in 1991 and 1.06% (0.17, 1.84) in 2019. Similar patterns were obtained when analyzing obesity, specifically.Conclusion SEP has become increasingly important at the population (group difference) and individual (prediction) levels. However, predictive ability remains low, suggesting limited utility of including SEP in prediction algorithms. Assuming links are causal, abolishing SEP differences in BMI could have a large effect on population health but would neither reverse the obesity epidemic nor explain the vast majority of individual differences in BMI.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe funders had no final role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication. All researchers listed as authors are independent from the funders and all final decisions about the research were taken by the investigators and were unrestricted. DB and RS are supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/M001660/1); DB and LW by the Medical Research Council (MR/V002147/1). CBS is funded by the ERSC [ES/V012789/1] and the National Institute of Health Research [COV-LT-0009-28654].Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Health Survey for England data are available via the UK Data Service (https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesHealth Survey for England data are available via the UK Data Service (https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/). The code used to run the analysis is available at https://osf.io/smd7z/. https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/ https://osf.io/smd7z/