Biomedical

Communication

Biosci. Biotech. Res. Comm. 9(4): 809-813 (2016)

Social class changes and its impact on Body Mass Index

amongst women of Chandigarh

Manju Dewan

Post Graduate Department of Zoology, DAV College, Sector 10, Chandigarh

ABSTRACT

Socioeconomic status shows a stronger relationship with obesity. Prevalence of raised body mass index increases with

income level of countries up to upper middle income levels. On the basis of education levels of the women, working

status and monthly income status. Scores were calculated using Kuppuswamy’s socioeconomic status. In the second

stage, anthropometric measurements of weight and height were recorded utilizing the standard equipments and

methodology.14% of women belonged to Upper class and 26%,39%,11.3% and 9.3% were in upper middle ,middle,

upper lower and lower classes respectively. Overweight women were more in upper middle and middle class. Obese I

women were more in middle class and obese-II were more in upper class. Trend of increase in obesity is from middle

class towards upper class. Rising national incomes in developing countries and increased `Westernization’ will most

likely lead to increased levels of obesity in the future. Trend of increase in obesity is from middle class towards upper

class. Income levels are related with different dietary habits and behavior that can lead to obesity. Future research

should also try to better understand shift in the burden of obesity in different socioeconomic status among women.

KEY WORDS: SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS, OBESITY,UPPER CLASS, MIDDLE CLASS

809

ARTICLE INFORMATION:

*Corresponding Author: manjudewan72@gmail.com

Received 25

Sep, 2016

Accepted after revision 23

Nov, 2016

BBRC Print ISSN: 0974-6455

Online ISSN: 2321-4007

Thomson Reuters ISI ESC and Crossref Indexed Journal

NAAS Journal Score 2015: 3.48 Cosmos IF : 4.006

reserved.

Online Contents Available at: http//www.bbrc.in/

INTRODUCTION

Socioeconomic status (SES) is often measured as a com-

bination of education, income and occupation. SES

affects the physical and mental health. The opening

of the Indian economy has resulted in rapid economic

boom and urbanization in this country. Prevalence of

raised body mass index increases with income level of

countries up to upper middle income levels. Income lev-

els are related with different dietary habits and behav-

ior that can lead to obesity. Between 1988–1994 and

2007–2008 the prevalence of obesity increased in adults

at all income and education levels.There is also a grow-

ing body of evidence that suggests that socio-economic

position (SEP) is a risk factor for obesity. The association

between socioeconomic status (SES) and obesity has not

810 SOCIAL CLASS CHANGES AND ITS IMPACT ON BODY MASS INDEX BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Manju Dewan

been assessed in developing countries, (Cynthia et al,

2010, Shunquan et al 2015 and Leileiet al 2015).

Different socioeconomic status and its relationship

with obesity and type 2 diabetes in women menin

ng c

ountries such as

a

in uence people’s life-

stylesuchas

food

n

atte

s

andpub-

lic services such as health care and physical activity.

There is tremendous difference in the economic develop-

ment in different regions of India with lower SES levels.

Thus, a deep understanding of the SES-obesity relation-

ship can provide signi cant approach for developing

effective obesity-prevention programs. This study aims

to explore the effect of SES on overweight/obesity on

gender in Chandigarh.

METHODOLOGY

First of all population data of Chandigarh was taken from

Directorate of census operations, Chandigarh as per cen-

sus 2011.The sector wise population and other parameters

have been discussed with the statistician and sample size

from each sector was decided. Standardization of appa-

ratuses was done. Women aged >20 and <60 years were

randomly selected by multistage cluster sampling. At the

time of the initiating the study, in  rst stage, 350 women

participated in the study. But 300 women competed the

all stages of study i.e. Questionnaire & dietary survey and

anthropometric measurements. All were informedabout

the study protocol and written consent was obtained.

Kuppuswamy’s socioeconomic status scale was used to

draw the information regarding socioeconomic status (

Kuppuswamy 1981, Mishra and Singh., 2003)

On the basis of education levels of the women, work-

ing status and monthly income status , Scores were

calculated using Kuppuswamy’s socioeconomic status.

In the second stage, anthropometric measurements of

weight and height were recorded utilizing the stand-

ard equipments and methodology. Weight was recorded

using electronic weighing scale to nearest 100 kg. Height

was recorded using the anthropometric rods. Three read-

ing of height and weight were taken and the mean of the

last two readings was considered as  nal.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

14% of women belonged to Upper class and

26%,39%,11.3% and 9.3% were in upper middle ,mid-

dle, upper lower and lower classes respectively. Educa-

tion levels of the women, working status and monthly

income status were given in Tables 1,2 &3. Overweight

women were more in upper middle and middle class.

Obese I women were more in middle class and obese-II

were more in upper class Table 4. But there is no sig-

ni cant difference in obese-I categories Table 5. It was

analyzed by social

fac-

tors those may operate through complex pathways to

in uence obesity

Overweight and obesity in early life are associated

with increased risk of hypertension, heart disease, dia-

betes mellitus, and sleep disturbances in adulthood (Ng.,

2014) Socioeconomic status shows a stronger bond with

obesity and lack of recreational physical activity in

women than in any other subgroup. Low income, ethnic

minority women have the highest inactivity rates in the

USA (Albright et al. 2005; Ball et al. 2006).

In 2007–2008 more than one-third of United States

adults were obese (Flegal et al 2010). Obese individuals

are at increased risk of diabetes mellitus, cardiovascu-

lar disease, hypertension, and certain cancers, among

other conditions (National Institutes of Health,1998).

Some studies have shown a relationship between obe-

sity prevalence and socioeconomic status measured as

educational level or income (Sobal and Stunkard,1989

and McLaren (2007)).

These results are consistent with

other reported studies in China (Xiao et al 2013 and Hou

et al, 2013)

TABLE 1: PREVALENCE OF LITERACY AMONGST SUBJECTS.

LITERACY SCORES NUMBER PERCENTAGE

Illiterate 7 31 10.3%

Primary school certi cate 6 38 12.6%

Middle 5 37 12.3%

High School 4 20 6.7%

Intermediate 3 38 12.7%

Graduate 2 91 30.3%

Post-Graduate 1 45 15%

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS SOCIAL CLASS CHANGES AND ITS IMPACT ON BODY MASS INDEX 811

Manju Dewan

TABLE 2: PREVALENCE OF WORKING STATUS AMONGST SUBJECTS.

OCCUPATION SCORES NUMBER PERCENTAGE

Profession 10 72 24%

Semi Profession 6 46 15.3%

Clerical, shop owner, Farmer 5 16 5.3%

Skilled Worker 4 18 6%

Semi-skilled Worker 3 22 7.3%

Unskilled Worker 2 20 6.7%

Unemployed 1 106 35.3%

TABLE 3: MONTHLY INCOME STATUS OF SUBJECTS.

MONTHLY FAMILY INCOME IN RS. SCORES NUMBER PERCENTAGE

>32,050 12 118 39.3%

16020-32049 10 51 17%

12020-16019 6 55 18.3%

8010-12019 4 24 8%

4810-8009 3 23 7.7%

1601-4809 2 16 5.3%

<1600 1 13 4.3%

TABLE 4: SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS OF THE SUBJECTS.

TOTAL SCORES SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS NUMBER: 300 PERCENTAGE

26-29 UPPER I 42 14%

16-25 UPPER MIDDLE II 78 26%

11-15 MIDDLE/ LOWER MIDDLE 117 39%

5-10 LOWER /UPPER LOWER 34 11.3%

<5 LOWER 29 9.7%

TABLE 5: RELATIONSHIP OF OBESITY WITH SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS OF SUBJECTS.

UPPER-I UPPER-II MIDDLE UPPER LOWER LOWER

TOTAL: 300 42 78 117 34 29

STATUS

Underweight 65 5 (11.9%) 22 (28.2%) 9 (7.7%) 12 (35.3%) 17 (58.6%)

Normal 102 11 (26.2) 15 (19.2%) 59 (50.4%) 12 (35.3%) 5 (17.2%)

Overweight 78 13 (30.9%) 25 (32%) 32 (27.3%) 5 (14.7%) 3 (10.3%)

Obese-I 35 8 (19%) 8 (10.3%) 14 (11.9%) 3 (8.8%) 2 (6.9%)

Obese-II 20 5 (11.9%) 8 (10.3%) 3 (2.6%) 2 (5.9%) 2 (6.9%)

812 SOCIAL CLASS CHANGES AND ITS IMPACT ON BODY MASS INDEX BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

Manju Dewan

According to other studies like that of Wells et al

(2012), Melnyk et al (2013) and Qin et al (2013) variables

related to the participants’ life styles were categorized

into different levels, e.g. farming frequency (<3 times/

week and ≥3 times/week), smoking frequency (no smok-

ing and ≥1 cigarette/day), drinking alcohol frequency

(no and ≥1/week) as well as amount of vegetable and

fruit consumption (<500g/week and ≥500g/week).

Negative associations (lower SES associated with

larger body size) for women in highly developed countries

were most common with education and occupation, while

positive associations for women in medium- and low-

development countries were most common with income

and material possessions

(McLaren, 2007). In the present

study most of the women belong to middle class and

overweight women were more in middle class women.

In a study published inDemography, workers have also

looked at how SES is related to obesity in the transition to

early adulthood in the United States (Melissa et al, 2011).

Overall, 29.0% of women who live in households with

income at or above 350% of the poverty level are obese

and 42.0% of those with income below 130% of the pov-

erty level are obese. Trends are similar for non-Hispanic

white, non-Hispanic black, and Mexican American

women, but they are only signi cant for non-Hispanic

white women. Among non Hispanic white women with

income at or above 350% of the poverty level 27.5% are

obese, less than the 39.2% of those with income below

130% of the poverty level. Among women, the preva-

lence increased from 15.3% to 23.4% in college gradu-

ates and from 31.7% to 42.1% in those with less than a

high school diploma. As in men, similar increases were

seen among women with a high school diploma and

among those with some college (Cynthia et al, 2010).

One another study put light on the overall picture of

the association between SES and obesity globally: obe-

sity is a problem of the rich in low-income countries

for both men and women, while there is a mixed pic-

ture in middle-income countries (Dinsa et al,2012).The

relationship between educational attainment and obe-

sity was modi ed by both gender and the country’s eco-

nomic 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 (Alison et al,2013)

Therefore, the wealth of a nation should affect the

prevalence of obesity as well as the relationship between

social class and obesity. There is an obesity epidemic in

developing countries, which is increasingly approaching

the all SES Levels. Rising national incomes in develop-

ing countries and increased `Westernization’ will most

likely lead to increased levels of obesity in the future.

Trend of increase in obesity is from middle class towards

upper class. Future research should also try to better

understand shift in the burden of obesity in different

socioeconomic status among women.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is highly thankful to UGC for providing grant

for undertaking the research project.

REFERENCES

Albright, C.L., L. Pruitt, C. Castro, A. Gonzalez, S. Woo, and

A.C. King. (2005). Modifying physical activity in a multieth-

nic sample of low-income women: one-year results from the

IMPACT (Increasing Motivation for Physical Forum on Public

Policy 17 ACTivity) project. Annals of Behavioral Medicine : a

Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine 30(3): 191-

200.

Alison K. Cohen,Manisha Rai,David H. Rehkopf, andBarbara

Abrams (2013) Educational attainment and obesity: A system-

atic reviewObes Rev. 2013 Dec; 14(12): 989–1005.

Ball, K., J. Salmon, B. Giles-Corti, and D. Crawford. (2006).

How can socio-economic differences in physical activity

among women be explained? A qualitative study. Women &

Health 43(1): 93-113.

Cynthia L. Ogden, Molly M. Lamb, Margaret D. Carroll and

Katherine M. Flegal (2010) U.S.department of health and human

services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National

Center for Health Statistics Obesity and Socioeconomic Status

in Adults: United States, 2005–2008 NCHS Data pro le, No.5.

Dinsa GD, Y Goryakin, E Fumagalli, and M Suhrcke (2012)

Obesity and socioeconomic status in developing countries: a

systematic review. Obes Rev. 2012 Nov; 13(11): 1067–1079.

Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Curtin LR(2010). Prevalence

and trends in obesity among United States adults, 1999–2008.

JAMA 303:235–41

Hou X, Liu Y, Lu H, Ma X, Hu C, Bao Y,(2013)Ten-year changes

in the prevalence of overweight, obesity and abdominal

obesity among the Chinese adults in urban Shanghai, 1998-

2007— comparison of two cross-sectional surveys. BMC Public

Health;13:1064.

Kuppuswamy B. (1981) Manual of Socioeconomic Status

(Urban), 1

ed. Delhi: Manasayan; 1981. p. 66-72.

Leilei Pei,Yue Cheng,Yijun Kang,Shuyi Yuan andHong Yan

(2015) : Association of obesity with socioeconomic status

among adults of ages 18 to 80years in rural Northwest China.

BMC Public Health 15:160

McLaren L. (2007) Socioeconomic status and obesity. Epide-

miol Rev 29:29–48. 2007

Melissa Scharoun-Lee., Penny Gordon-Larsen, Linda S.

Adair, Barry M. Popkin, Jay S. Kaufman, and Chirayath M.

Suchindran (2011) Intergenerational Pro les of Socioeconomic

(Dis) Advantage and Obesity During the Transition to Adult-

hood,”Demography48, No. 2, 625-51.

Manju Dewan

BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS SOCIAL CLASS CHANGES AND ITS IMPACT ON BODY MASS INDEX 813

Melnyk BM, Jacobson D, Kelly S, Belyea M, Shaibi G, Small L.

(2013) Promoting healthy lifestyles in high school adolescents:

a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med.; 45(4):407–15.

Mishra D, Singh HP (2003) . Kuppuswamy’s socioeconomic

status scale - A revision. Indian J Pediatr; 70:273-4

National Institutes of Health(1998) Clinical Guidelines on

the identi cation, evaluation, and treatment of overweight

and obesity in adults-The evidence report. Obes Res 6 Suppl

2:51S–209S

Ng M.(2014). Global, regional, and national prevalence of

overweight and obesity in children and adults during 1980-

2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease

Study. The Lancet.384, 766–781 (2014).

Qin X, Zhang Y, Cai Y, He M, Sun L, Fu J.(2013) Prevalence of

obesity, abdominal obesity and associated factors in hyperten-

sive adults aged 45–75 years. Clin Nutr;32(3):361–7.

Shunquan Wu,Yingying Ding,,Fuquan Wu,,Ruisheng Li,,Yan

Hu,,Jun Hou,&Panyong (2015) Mao Socio-economic position

as an intervention against overweight and obesity in children:

a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scienti c Reports5:

Articlenumber:11354

Sobal J, Stunkard AJ.(1989) Socioeconomic status and obesity:

A review of the literature. Psychol Bull 105:260–75.

Wells JC, Marphatia AA, Cole TJ, McCoy D.(2012) Associa-

tions of economic and gender inequality with global obesity

prevalence: Understanding the female excess. Soc Sci Med.;

75:482–90.

Wichai Aekplakorn,Rungkarn Inthawong, Pattapong Kessom-

boon,Rassamee Sangthong,Suwat Chariyalertsak,Panwadee

Putwatana, and Surasak Taneepanichskul (2014) Prevalence

and Trends of Obesity and Association with Socioeconomic

Status in Thai Adults: National Health Examination Surveys,

1991–2009. J Obes : 410259.

Xiao Y, Zhao N, Wang H, Zhang J, He Q, Su D. (2013) Associa-

tion between socioeconomic status and obesity in a Chinese

adult population. BMC Public Health ;13:355.