Journal of Global Health: Home Journal of Global Health
Watch: Survival: The Story of Global Health - FREE
JoGH Recommends:

Peer Review Conference



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution
3.0 Unported License
.


Hongjiang Wu, Xiangrui Meng, Sarah H Wild, Danijela Gasevic, and Caroline A Jackson

Abstract

Background

China is estimated to have had the largest number of people with diabetes in the world in 2015, with extrapolation of existing data suggesting that this situation will continue until at least 2030. Type 2 diabetes has been reported to be more prevalent among people with low socioeconomic status (SES) in high–income countries, whereas the opposite pattern has been found in studies from low– and middle–income countries. We conducted a systematic review to describe the cross–sectional association between SES and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Chinese in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Methods

We conducted a systematic literature search in Medline, Embase and Global Health electronic databases for English language studies reporting prevalence or odds ratio for type 2 diabetes in a Chinese population for different SES groups measured by education, income and occupation. We appraised the quality of included studies using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta–analyses, therefore we summarized study results using a narrative synthesis.

Results

Thirty–three studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. The association between education, income and occupation and type 2 diabetes was reported by 27, 19 and 12 studies, respectively. Most, but not all, studies reported an inverse association between education and type 2 diabetes, with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.39 (CI not reported) to 1.52 (95% CI 0.91 – 2.54) for the highest compared to the lowest education level. The association between income and type 2 diabetes was inconsistent between studies. Only a small number of studies identified a significant association between occupation and type 2 diabetes. Retired people and people working in white collar jobs were reported to have a higher risk of type 2 diabetes than other occupational groups even after adjusting for age.

Conclusions

This first systematic review of the association between individual SES and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in China found that low education is probably associated with an increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes, while the association between income and occupation and type 2 diabetes is unclear.


The prevalence of diabetes in China has increased markedly (and much faster than in high income countries) over recent decades [1]. Nationally representative surveys indicate an increase in prevalence of diabetes in China from about 0.9% in adults aged 30 years or older in 1980 to 11.6% in adults aged 18 years or older in 2010 [2,3]. China is thought to have had the largest number of people with diabetes in the world in 2015, with extrapolation of existing data suggesting that this situation will continue until at least 2030 [4].

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a complex concept that describes the position an individual occupies in the structure of society [5]. It consists of many dimensions and is often measured by using several indicators such as income, education and occupation. SES has been recognized as an important determinant of a population’s health [6]. SES is closely linked to a wide range of health problems, including communicable and non–communicable diseases, with different strengths and directions of association in different populations [712]. Unlike many risk factors that have consistently shown an association with diabetes across populations, including age, overweight/obesity and physical inactivity, the association between SES and diabetes is not the same in all populations [4,1315]. In high–income countries, type 2 diabetes is more prevalent among lower than higher socioeconomic groups [10,1621], whereas the opposite pattern has been found in studies from low– and middle–income countries undergoing rapid economic development [2225].

Evidence from developed countries indicates that, during the epidemiological transition, noncommunicable diseases occur initially in high SES groups, before appearing in low SES groups [26]. China has experienced extremely rapid economic development over the past 30 years and major economic inequality exists within and between regions, but it is not clear how this is associated with diabetes prevalence [27]. Previous studies have reported inconsistent associations between SES and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in China [2831]. Understanding the association between SES and diabetes in China is necessary in order to attempt to address socioeconomic health disparities in diabetes as well as for planning approaches to primary and secondary prevention of diabetes in the Chinese population.

To our knowledge, there is no published systematic review of SES and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in China. We conducted a systematic review of cross–sectional studies to describe the association between SES (measured by education, income and occupation) and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Chinese populations in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Chinese people in Hong Kong and Taiwan are genetically similar to their counterparts in mainland China. However, the former are at a more advanced stage of economic development and epidemiological transition, with a larger proportion of people living in urbanised environments and developing related lifestyle habits than in China. Health care systems also differ to that of mainland China [32]. Understanding the association between SES and type 2 diabetes in Hong Kong and Taiwan is useful for helping estimate future diabetes prevalence in urban areas of mainland China.

METHODS

Literature search

This systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA guideline (see checklist in Appendix S1 in Online Supplementary Document(Online Supplementary Document) ). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO and can be accessed at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016047913. We carried out a systematic literature search of published studies describing the association between SES and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. We searched Medline (1946–May 2016), Embase (1980–May 2016) and Global Health (1973–May 2016) using a comprehensive search strategy (Appendix S2 in Online Supplementary Document(Online Supplementary Document) ). Although the primary reviewers are Chinese, we did not include Chinese databases because other members of the research team, who provided additional review input, are not Chinese speakers. No limits were applied for language or publication time.

Study selection and data extraction

We included cross–sectional population–based studies and baseline surveys of population–based cohort studies which: included Chinese populations in mainland China, Hong Kong or Taiwan aged 18 years or older; reported data on prevalence of type 2 diabetes or odds ratio of type 2 diabetes for populations in different SES groups; defined individual SES exposure as education, income or occupation; and were written in English. We excluded: case–control and hospital–based studies; studies limited to populations selected for specific characteristics such as hypertension or obesity; and non–English language articles. If data from the same study were reported in multiple publications, we applied the following three criteria in the order given, thereby including the publication with either: more information on the association between SES indicators and type 2 diabetes; a greater number of participants; or the most recent publication date. We did not include longitudinal studies as no longitudinal studies of incidence of diabetes in different SES groups in mainland China were identified in our pilot literature search. We conducted a pilot literature search for longitudinal studies published after 2010 based on a systematic review published in 2011, which reported no studies of incidence of diabetes and SES were identified in China [15].

Two authors (HW and XM) screened the titles, abstracts and (for potentially relevant studies) full text of articles and independently extracted key characteristics for included articles. We extracted information on: author; study year; year of publication; sample size; number of people with type 2 diabetes; demographics; participant selection; study location; SES measures; diabetes diagnosis method; outcome measures (prevalence and odds ratio); and adjustments for potential confounders. Where possible, confidence intervals for prevalence and odds ratio were calculated if they were not reported by authors. For studies reporting several models to estimate the association between SES and diabetes, the result from the model with the most complete adjustment for confounding was chosen. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the two authors (HW and XM) with a third author acting as arbiter if a decision could not be made.

Quality assessment

Two authors (HW and XM) independently appraised the quality of included studies using a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies (Appendix S3 in Online Supplementary Document(Online Supplementary Document) ) which allows a quantitative assessment of study quality [33]. This scale contains six items, categorized into three dimensions including selection, comparability, and outcome. Within the selection category, a study can be awarded one score for each of the following items: representativeness of the sample; description of the sample; and ascertainment of SES exposures. Within the comparability category, a maximum of two scores were given for the control of confounding factors. Within the outcome category, a maximum of two scores were given for the assessment of the diagnosis of diabetes and one score for the confidence intervals and probability level reported in studies. Each study was scored from 0–8, with a higher score representing higher quality.

Synthesis of study findings

We reported type 2 diabetes prevalence and odds ratios for associations between SES indicators and type 2 diabetes for each of education, income and occupation. For education and income, we presented summary figures showing the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the lowest and highest SES level and odds ratios of type 2 diabetes for the highest compared with lowest SES level from the model with the most complete adjustment for confounding. Ideally, we would have summarized odds ratios adjusted for age and sex only, but unfortunately few studies reported these minimally adjusted estimates, with most adjusting for additional factors. For studies reporting results only in several subgroups (eg, stratified by age and gender), we presented the result with the largest sample size. It was not possible to summarize the findings for occupation in figures, given the marked heterogeneity in definition of occupation.

For each SES indicator, the full results from each study, including stratification by urban/rural status were summarized in supplementary materials, grouped according to whether studies presented: only prevalence; only odds ratios; and both prevalence and odds ratios, and ranked from high to low quality. These figures and tables were accompanied by a narrative synthesis of the study findings, since heterogeneity between studies precluded meta–analyses.

RESULTS

Selection of studies

The literature search initially identified 3003 studies, with 1935 remaining after de–duplication. Of these, 1771 studies were excluded after title and abstract screening, and 131 further studies were excluded after full text review. Thirty–three studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review ( Figure 1 ).

Figure 1.  Flowchart of selection of studies in systematic review.
jogh-07-011103-F1


Study characteristics

An overview of the characteristics of the included studies is presented in Table 1 . Twenty–four studies were conducted in mainland China (three in urban areas, five in rural areas and 16 in both urban and rural areas), three in Hong Kong and six in Taiwan. Study year ranged from 1986 to 2012, with a marked increase in studies on this topic over time, with 24 studies published since 2009. Sample size ranged from 988 [63] to 512 891 [41]. All studies included both men and women, but only five reported the association between SES and type 2 diabetes by sex. Self–reported diabetes and fasting blood glucose were the most commonly used methods to diagnose diabetes. Some studies used an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), random blood glucose and postprandial blood glucose for diagnosis of diabetes. Twelve studies provided prevalence of diabetes in different SES groups, 15 studies provided odds ratio of diabetes for different SES groups, and six provided both prevalence and odds ratios.

Table 1.  Characteristics of studies identified in systematic review with evaluation of association between prevalence of type 2 diabetes and SES in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan
Study Study year Participants selection Sample, N (diabetes) Gender (% men) Age (mean ± SD, years) Study location* SES indicator Diabetes diagnosis method Outcome measure (prevalence/odds ratio) Quality score
Wu et al. 2016 [34] 2007–2011 Using a random multistage stratified sampling method, 2–3 cities within each of 6 provinces from south and north China were selected, from which several communities and villages were randomly selected 23 010 (983†) 46.9 ≥18 (43.0, 30.4–56.3)‡ Urban and rural Education Self–report or FBG Prevalence 7
Liu et al. 2016 [35] 2001, 2010 Using a two–stage cluster random sampling method, 9 residential communities were randomly selected in Wanshoulu district in Beijing, from which all households were chosen and one person aged ≥60 was randomly selected in each household 2001: 2277 (487§), 2010: 2102 (521§) 2001: 41.4; 2010: 40.3 ≥60 (67.9 ± 5.8 in 2001; 71.2 ± 6.6 in 2010) Urban Education Self–report or FBG Prevalence 5
Zhou et al. 2015 [36] 2010 Using a multistage probability sampling design, 3 communities or villages were selected in each of 4 subdistricts with probability proportional to size from each National Disease Surveillance Point; within each community 50 households were randomly selected, and one person randomly selected in each household 98 058 (12 237§) 45.7 ≥18 (NR) Urban and rural Education, occupation Self–report or FBG or OGTT or HbA1c Odds ratio 6
Yu et al. 2015 [37] 2012 Using a multistage stratified random cluster sampling method, 32 counties were selected from 9 cities, from which 3 or 4 towns were randomly selected; within each town, 3 neighborhood committers were randomly selected, from each of which one village was randomly selected, before randomly selecting people aged 18 to 79 years 16 834 (1380‖) 45.9 18–79 (42.7 ± 14.5) Urban and rural Education, income, occupation Self–report or FBG Prevalence 7
Xue et al. 2015 [38] 2006, 2009 Using a stratified random cluster sampling method, people who lived in Qingdao city for at least 5 years in 3 urban areas and 3 rural areas were selected 6894 (360‡) 39.4 35–74 (51.2 ± 10.6) Urban and rural Education, income HbA1c Odds ratio 7
Xu et al. 2015 [39] 2010–2011 Using a multistage stratified random sampling method, 3 central temples and 3 counties in Chengdu region were selected from each altitude level; 4 townships were selected from each county, and within each townships 3 villages were selected, from which all people aged ≥18 were selected 1659 (106‖) 49.5 ≥18 (44.0 ± 15.2) Urban and rural Education, income Self–report or FBG or OGTT Prevalence 7
Bu et al. 2015 [40] 2007–2008 Using a multistage stratified random sampling method, cities within 14 provinces in China were selected, from which 152 city districts and 112 rural villages were randomly selected; people aged ≥20 years who had lived at their current residence for ≥5 years were selected 39 071 (3254‖) 39.2 ≥30 (NR) Urban and rural Education Self–report or FBG or OGTT Odds ratio 6
Bragg et al. 2014 [41] 2004–2008 People aged 30–79 were selected from five urban and five rural areas in China; these were permanent residents identified through official residential and invited by letter after extensive publicity campaigns 512 891 (30 773‖) 41.0 30–79 (NR) Urban and rural Education, income Self–report or FBG or random blood glucose Prevalence 5
Zhang et al. 2013 [28] 2005 Using a multistage stratified cluster random sampling method, 3 communities were randomly selected from two urban and one suburban district(s) in Tianjin; 3 neighborhoods were randomly selected from each community and all people who had lived in the selected neighborhoods for >5 years and were aged ≥15 years were selected 7315 (688§) NR 20–79 (NR) Urban Education, income, occupation Self–report or FBG or OGTT Odds ratio 6
Xia et al. 2013 [42] 2010–2011 Using a stratified random sampling method, 3 communities within each of 4 districts of Haikou were randomly selected, from which 1000 people were selected 12 000 (636§) 51.0 >18 (49.1 ± 0.26¶) Urban Education, occupation FBG Prevalence 5
Wu et al. 2013 [43] 2010 Using a probability sampling design and a multistage cluster sampling method, 1 county from rural National Disease Surveillance Points (DSPs) and one district from urban DSPs were selected from 8 provinces, resulting in 64 principle sample units 13 157 (868‡) 48.1 ≥50 (62.6 ± 0.3) Urban and rural Income Self–report Both 6
Wang et al. 2013 [44] 2011 Using a multistage stratified random sampling method, all townships within two counties in Yunnan province were selected and within each township 2 villages were randomly selected 4801 (341‖) 44.8 25–86 (51.1) Rural Education, income Self–report or FBG or OGTT Odds ratio 7
Cai et al. 2013 [45] 2011 Using a multistage stratified random sampling method, 1 county with high wealth and 1 county with low wealth were randomly selected in Yunnan province; people aged ≥18 were randomly selected from 20 villages within each county 9396 (614§) 46.0 ≥18 (51.7 ± 19.6) Rural Education Self–report or FBG Prevalence 6
Yan et al. 2012 [46] 2009 Using a multistage random cluster sampling method, people aged ≥7 were randomly selected from 228 communities in 9 provinces 8458 (NR) 47.1 ≥18 (NR) Urban and rural Income FBG or HbA1c Odds ratio 6
Chen and Chen. 2012 [47] NR Using a multistage random cluster sampling method, 2–12 townships were randomly selected from each 23 counties in Taiwan, within which 12–123 neighborhoods were randomly selected; within each neighborhood, 4 households were randomly selected 13 741 (NR) 57.0 18–64 (NR) Taiwan Occupation Self–report Both 6
Shi et al. 2011 [48] 2002 Using a multistage random sampling method, households were randomly selected from 6 counties and 2 cities; all people in the households were selected 2849 (79‖) 45.9 ≥20 (47.0) Urban and rural Education FBG Prevalence 6
Lin et al. 2011 [49] 2004 Using a multistage random sampling method with a sampling rate proportional to size within each stage, 39 Li units were randomly selected from each 8 city districts; people were randomly selected from each sample Li 2332 (284§) 48.6 ≥40 (56.9) Taiwan Education, income Self–report or FBG Prevalence 6
Kavikondala et al. 2011 [50] 2005–2008 People were randomly selected from ‘The Guangzhou Health and Happiness Association’ who are permanent residents in Guangzhou 19 818 (2193‡) 26.7 50–96 (60.4) Urban Education, occupation Self–report or FBG Odds ratio 6
Fu et al. 2011 [30] 2006–2007 All adult residents aged 18–64 were selected with exclusion of those who were temporary workers or university students not living in the county from four rural communities in Deqing, Zhejiang province 4506 (99‡) 41.4 18–64 (46.1 ± 10.0) Rural Education, income, occupation Self–report or FBG Both 7
Cai et al. 2011 [29] 2008–2010 Using a multistage stratified random sampling method, 3 counties with low, high and high level of wealth were randomly selected from Yunnan province; all townships in counties were selected and 3 villages in each township were selected by probability proportional to size, from which people aged ≥18 years were randomly selected 10 007 (657§) 46.2 ≥18 (NR) Rural Education, income Self–report or FBG Odds ratio 6
Wei et al. 2010 [51] 2005 Using a multistage random cluster sampling, communities were randomly selected from 5 areas in a region in Heilongjiang 1058 (75§) 50.1 >20 (NR) Rural Education, income Self–report or FBG or OGTT Both 7
Zhou et al. 2009 [52] 2007–2008 People aged ≥20 years in 10 communities in Beijing were selected where their committees would like to cooperate with the research team 2801 (580§) 27.2 35–79 (54.7) Urban and rural Education, income, occupation Self–report or FBG or OGTT Both 7
Ning et al. 2009[53] 2001–2002, 2006 Using a stratified random cluster sampling method, people aged 35–74 years living in Qingdao city for at least 5 years were randomly selected from 3 urban districts and 4 rural counties 11 624 (1383‡) 39.6 35–74 (54.4 in 2001–2002; 51.5 in 2006) Urban and rural Education, income, occupation Self–report or FBG or OGTT Odds ratio 7
Hu et al. 2009 [54] 2000–2001 Using a multistage stratified random sampling method, 1 rural and 1 urban county within each of four provinces from North and 4 provinces from South China were randomly selected; 1 township/street was randomly selected from each county, from which people aged 35–74 years were randomly selected 15 236 (986§) 48.4 35–74 (50.1 ± 0.12¶) Urban and rural Education, income, occupation Self–report or FBG Prevalence 7
Xu et al. 2006 [31] 2000–2001 Using a multistage random sampling method, 3 urban districts and 2 rural counties were randomly selected in Nanjing, from each of which 3 streets/towns were selected; 3 villages were randomly selected in each street/town, from which people aged ≥35 y who had been a local resident for at least 5 years in each village were selected 29 340 (556§) 49.8 ≥35 (NR) Urban and rural Education, income, occupation Self–report Both 6
Chou and Chi. 2005 [55] 1996 People aged ≥60 years in 6000 households were randomly selected from a continuous sample survey, which use a full list of addresses of quarters in Hong Kong as the sampling frame 2003 (246§) 47.0 ≥60 (NR) Hong Kong Education Self–report Prevalence 4
Yu and Wong. 2004 [56] NR Households in Tai Po Hong Kong were randomly selected by telephone survey using a residential telephone directory 2670 (NR) NR ≥20 (NR) Hong Kong Income Self–report Odds ratio 5
Woo et al. 2003 [57] 1995–1996 People aged 25–74 from 3 major of Hong Kong were randomly selected by telephone survey 988 (59§) 49.4 25–74 (45.6 ± 11.7) Hong Kong Education FBG or OGTT Prevalence 5
Chen et al. 2001 [58] 1996–1997 Using a multistage proportional stratified random cluster sampling method, people aged 50–79 years were randomly selected from 3 townships 1293 (182‡) 41.8 50–79 (63.8) Taiwan Education Self–report or FBG Odds ratio 7
Chen et al. 1999 [59] 1995–1996 Using a proportional stratified random sampling method, people aged 40–79 years were randomly selected from 6 areas 1601 (295§) 48.7 40–79 (57.4) Taiwan Occupation Self–report or FBG Odds ratio 7
Pan et al. 1997 [60] 1994 People aged ≥25 years were selected from cities and rural areas in 19 provinces 213 515 (4864§) 52.9 25–64 (NR) Urban and rural Income Self–report or FBG or OGTT Odds ratio 6
Chou et al. 1994 [61] 1991 All people aged >30 years in each village from Kin–Hu Town were selected 3236 (193§) 47.5 >30 (NR) Taiwan Education FBG or OGTT Odds ratio 5
Tai et al. 1992 [62] 1986 8 subdistricts of Ta–An District in Taipei City and 5 villages of 11 counties of Taiwan Province were randomly selected 11 478 (715§) 50.3 ≥40 (NR) Taiwan Education, income Self–report or FBG or postprandial blood glucose or OGTT Odds ratio 6

SD – standard deviation, Self–report – self–reported history of type 2 diabetes or using medication for type 2 diabetes, FBG – fasting blood glucose, OGTT – oral glucose tolerance test, NR – not reported

*Urban and/or rural are in mainland China.

†Median and interquartile range.

‡Number is estimated based on the crude prevalence of diabetes.

§Number reported in the study.

‖Number is estimated based on the adjusted prevalence of diabetes.

¶Standard error.



Quality of included studies

The quality scores of included studies ranged from 4 to 7 with a mean score of 6.0 based on the modified NOS assessment. Two studies had a highly selected study population. One selected the sample from an association for elders to represent the total older population of the study area [50], and a second study included participants who were willing to cooperate with the research team, without using any sampling techniques [52]. Fourteen studies did not report sex or age distribution, which is a limitation since both sex and age are important risk factors for type 2 diabetes [4]. Eight studies only reported crude prevalence of diabetes or unadjusted odds ratio for the association between SES and diabetes [35,42,45,48,49,55,57,61] and five studies defined diabetes solely based on self–reported diagnosis [31,43,47,55,56]. In addition, four studies did not provide confidence intervals or p values for statistical tests [35,41,42,57].

Measures of SES

A single measure of SES was reported in 15 studies, with the remaining studies reporting data for two (10 studies) or three (8 studies) SES indicators. Education was the most commonly used indicator, being reported in 27 studies, and was classified either as highest educational level (in 21 studies) or the number of school years completed. Income was reported in 19 studies, including 15 family income measures and four personal income measures. Occupation was reported in 12 studies, but the measures of occupation differed greatly between studies, with the definition based on: job titles; skills (manual or non–manual); or a simple classification of employed and unemployed.

Association between SES and type 2 diabetes

Among the 27 studies reporting on education and type 2 diabetes, 16 reported prevalence estimates, among which five reported standardized prevalence. Fifteen studies reported odds ratios, 14 of which presented odds ratios that controlled for various potential confounders. Generally, prevalence of type 2 diabetes was higher in those with a lower compare to higher education level ( Figure 2 and Appendices S4 and S6 in Online Supplementary Document(Online Supplementary Document)) . Most, but not all, studies reported either a significant inverse association between education level and type 2 diabetes or a possible trend toward such an association, with odds ratios (95% CI) ranged from 0.39 (CI not reported) to 1.52 (0.91, 2.54) for the highest compared to the lowest education level ( Figure 3 and Appendices S5 and S6 in Online Supplementary Document(Online Supplementary Document) ). The studies from Hong Kong reported an inverse association [57] and no significant association [55] between education and type 2 diabetes. Among four studies from Taiwan reporting an association between education and type 2 diabetes, two reported an inverse association [49,61], and the other two reported no evidence of an association [58,62]. Among all studies, four studies reported sex–specific analyses, with two reporting that higher education was associated with increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes among men, with the opposite observed in women [34,52]. The other two studies [39,53] did not find any gender differences in the association between education and type 2 diabetes.

Figure 2.  Prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the lowest and highest levels of education and income in included studies.
jogh-07-011103-F2


Figure 3.  Study specific odds ratios for type 2 diabetes comparing the highest vs lowest levels of education and income in included studies.
jogh-07-011103-F3


Of the 19 studies reporting on income and type 2 diabetes, 10 reported prevalence estimates, among which four reported a standardized prevalence. Fourteen studies reported odds ratios, all but one of which only presented odds ratios adjusted for various confounders. There was no clear pattern of prevalence of type 2 diabetes by income level across studies, with considerable inconsistency between studies ( Figure 2 , Appendices S7 and S9 in Online Supplementary Document(Online Supplementary Document) ). Similarly, among studies reporting odds ratios, the evidence for an association between income level and type 2 diabetes was inconsistent ( Figure 3 , Appendices S8 and S9 in Online Supplementary Document(Online Supplementary Document) ). The study from Hong Kong reported an inverse association between income and type 2 diabetes [56]. The studies from Taiwan reported an inverse association [49] and no significant association [62] between income and type 2 diabetes. Among all studies, four studies reported sex–specific analyses, among which Ning et al. [53] found a significant positive association between income and type 2 diabetes only in men in rural areas. Zhou et al. [52] and Yan et al. [46] also found a positive association in men but not in women. A fourth study did not find a gender difference, but included a very small sample size [39].

Of the 12 studies reporting on occupation and type 2 diabetes, eight reported prevalence estimates, with two reporting estimates standardized for various factors. Nine studies reported odds ratios, all of which controlled for various potential confounders. As the measures of occupation were heterogeneous, it is not easy to rank the occupation classification from high to low SES. This affects the comparability of the findings from studies reporting on occupation and type 2 diabetes and we were unable to present the results using a figure as for education and income. Zhou et al. [36] and Zhang et al. [28] found an increased risk of type 2 diabetes in retired compared to employed people after adjusting for age. Xu et al. [31] found the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was much higher in people with white collar occupations than blue collar occupations, even after controlling for confounding factors. Chen and Chen [47] found professionals had the lowest risk of type 2 diabetes compared to other kinds of occupation such as officials, salespersons and assemblers. However, most studies did not report a statistically significant association between occupation and prevalence of type 2 diabetes (Appendices S10, S11 and S12 in Online Supplementary Document(Online Supplementary Document) ).

DISCUSSION

This systematic review of the association between SES and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Chinese populations in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan suggests that higher education is probably associated with a decreased prevalence of type 2 diabetes. The association between income and type 2 diabetes was inconsistent between studies. While most studies found no association between occupation and diabetes prevalence, a few did report higher prevalence among people who were retired or in white–collar jobs compared to other occupations. These findings were not obviously influenced by study year or quality score.

Explanation for findings in this systematic review

In this systematic review, most studies suggested that higher levels of education are associated with decreased prevalence of diabetes, but some found the opposite association. For example, Xu et al. [39] reported a positive association between education and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in a relatively small Tibetan population. Tibet is an undeveloped region at an earlier economic development stage compared with other parts of China, which may partly contribute to this different result. Despite being conducted in the same area and using the same methods Liu et al. [35] found a much higher prevalence of type 2 diabetes in higher education groups in people aged 60 years or older in a 2010 survey, having found no association in the 2001 survey. This study dichotomised education using a cut–off of 7 years. However, from the 1960s a large proportion of Chinese started to receive middle school education (9 years of education) [64] and so choosing 7 years as the cut–point may have different effects in different birth cohorts. Xu et al. [31] found a significantly higher crude prevalence of type 2 diabetes in people with a higher education level, but the logistic regression model revealed a non–significant inverse association after adjusting for several variables. This means that the crude positive association between prevalence of type 2 diabetes and education may have been distorted by confounding factors. Furthermore, differences in definitions of education might explain some of the heterogeneity observed between studies. It is important to note that all three studies reporting a positive association between education and prevalence of type 2 diabetes measured education as school years completed [31,35,39]. However, people may receive different economic return from school years completed compared to educational level achieved [65].

The direction of association between income and prevalence of type 2 diabetes differed between studies in our review. This is inconsistent with previous studies which has found people from high–income countries with low income were more likely to have type 2 diabetes [66,67], but an opposite association in people from low– and middle–income countries [22,68]. There are several potential explanations for the inconsistent association between income and diabetes in our review. First, unlike education, which is usually completed in young adulthood, income is unstable and sensitive to change in life circumstances and so it is not necessarily a good indicator of whole life SES [69]. Second, self–reported income is more likely to be under– or over–estimated in studies as people may consider income sensitive information and be reluctant to report it, which obviously decreases the reliability and increases the risk of non–differential bias toward a null association [70]. In addition, income is only one part of an individual’s assets and is not a very good measure among older people, especially retired people, where income is low but actual wealth can be high. Furthermore, the classification of income level is very different between studies with the lowest category ranging from <2500¥ (US$ 360) to <10 000¥ (US$ 1440) for a family’s whole year income [41,52]. Four studies in this systematic review used personal income as individual’s measure of SES [28,53,54,60]. However, total family income is believed to be more reliable than personal income, especially for young adults and women, who may not be the main earners in the family [69]. However, when applying total family income to all family members, family size should be accounted for, since for the same income, a larger family may have higher outgoing costs than a smaller family [71]. Among 15 studies reporting total family income, only one study considered family size [31]. Furthermore, China has undergone a very rapid economic development during the past several decades [72]. However, changes in an individual’s lifestyle and health–related behaviors may lag behind changes in economic conditions and may also differ in different settings.

We did not find a consistent association between occupation and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in this systematic review, though a few studies reported statistically significant findings. The classification of occupation across studies was complex and heterogeneous. Occupation in China is associated with education and income but also differing levels of physical activity that makes its classification as a risk factor for diabetes challenging.

The methods used to diagnose type 2 diabetes varied across studies, which was another source of heterogeneity between studies. Different diagnostic criteria may have a different effect on the magnitude of the association between SES and diabetes. According to the latest China nationally representative diabetes survey, around 70% of Chinese adults with diabetes were undiagnosed [3]. Thus, among the five studies that defined diabetes based on self–report, a large proportion of those with diabetes in these studies may have been erroneously assigned to the non–diabetic group and this misclassification may differ by SES groups. Bragg et al. [41] found that undiagnosed diabetes was more common among people in low education and low income groups, while the opposite was found for self–reported diabetes. People with high SES typically have more access to health resources such as routine health checks, thus they may be more likely to be aware of their health conditions. However, another study [28] did not find this difference. To more clearly examine this association, more studies reporting on the association between SES and both diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes are required.

Limitations of the study

Our review was limited to papers published in the English language. A systematic review of studies published in Chinese is also needed to exclude potential bias. Another important limitation is that the association between SES and diabetes was rarely the main research aim or hypothesis of most identified studies. SES was generally considered as a descriptive variable of the study sample or a potential confounder of relationships between other variables and health outcomes. It is also important to note that most prevalence estimates presented in studies were unadjusted for age, which is a key confounder of the association between SES and diabetes. Additionally, all but three studies reporting odds ratios were adjusted for various factors in addition to age and sex, many of which may lie on the causal pathway between SES and type 2 diabetes. Inclusion of these factors may have led to over–adjustment of the association between SES indicators and type 2 diabetes. A few studies in this systematic review found that the strength and direction of association between SES and prevalence of type 2 diabetes differed by sex but it is not clear whether this is consistent in different populations. A sex–specific SES gradient in health outcomes has been reported by previous studies [73]. For example, the SES gradient in prevalence of type 2 diabetes appears to be stronger in women than men in Scotland [74]. Furthermore, the scope of this review did not include the association between other indicators of individual SES (such as wealth, house condition, car and home ownership) or area–based SES measures [75].

SES indicators may have different values and implications in different urban and rural settings and in developed and undeveloped areas [7679]. For example, people in rural areas may not need a very high education level to engage in agricultural or farming work. Also, the same level of income may have different implications for people living in developed and undeveloped areas. For example, an average monthly income of US$ 1500 provides vastly different standards of living for a family in west China compared to those living in Hong Kong. In this review, efforts were made to examine whether the association between SES and type 2 diabetes vary by study location in urban, rural mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan. However, the inconsistent findings and limited number of studies within each of these study geographical locations meant that no obvious patterns were observed.

Implications for health policy and future research

Health polices for reducing socioeconomic health disparities in diabetes can only be made when the association between SES and diabetes is fully understood. This review found some evidence of an inverse relationship between education and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in Chinese populations. However, associations between income, occupation and diabetes were inconsistent. More studies, including review of those in Chinese language publications, are needed to explore the association between income and occupation and diabetes and to identify whether associations differ in different sub–groups of the population and in different regions of China. Additionally, repeated cross–sectional studies are needed to explore how associations between SES and diabetes change over time in China.

Although the association between SES and diabetes varies between countries, China is the country with the largest number of people with diabetes in the world and is undergoing rapid economic development. The epidemiological transition in China and the challenges of identifying and addressing socio–economic inequalities in health therefore have important implications for global health.

CONCLUSIONS

This first systematic review of the association between individual SES and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in China found that low education is probably associated with an increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes. However, further work is needed to determine whether similar associations are observed with income and occupation.

Acknowledgements

Disclaimer: We confirm that the views expressed in this submitted article are our own and not an official position of the institution or funder.

Notes

[1] Financial disclosure Funding: HW and XM are funded by scholarships from the China Scholarship Council.

[2] Authorship declaration: HW and XM independently conducted the literature search and data extraction. HW wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the findings and the paper’s critical writing. All authors approved the final draft of the manuscript.

[3] Conflicts of interest Competing interests: Sarah H Wild reports honoraria for lectures on epidemiology of diabetes from Global MedEd/Astra Zeneca and on the Scottish Diabetes Register from Novo Nordisk. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available upon request from the corresponding author) and declare no other conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

[1] NCD Risk Factor Collaboration Worldwide trends in diabetes since 1980: a pooled analysis of 751 population-based studies with 4.4 million participants. Lancet 2016 387 1513 30 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00618-8 27061677

[2] National Diabetes Co-operative Study Group A mass survey of diabetes mellitus in a population of 300 000 in 14 provinces and municipalities in China. [article in Chinese] Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi 1981 20 678 83 7341098

[3] Y Xu L Wang J He Y Bi M Li T Wang Prevalence and control of diabetes in Chinese adults. JAMA 2013 310 948 59 10.1001/jama.2013.168118 24002281

[4] International Diabetes Federation. IDF diabetes atlas seventh edition. 2015. Available: http://www.diabetesatlas.org/resources/2015-atlas.html. Accessed: 11 May 2017.

[5] Lynch J, Kaplan G. Socioeconomic position. 2000: Social epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.

[6] Cutler DM, Lleras-Muney A, Vogl T. Socioeconomic status and health: dimensions and mechanisms. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2008.

[7] I Grotto M Huerta Y Sharabi Hypertension and socioeconomic status. Curr Opin Cardiol 2008 23 335 9 10.1097/HCO.0b013e3283021c70 18520717

[8] L McLaren Socioeconomic status and obesity. Epidemiol Rev 2007 29 29 48 10.1093/epirev/mxm001 17478442

[9] AM Clark M DesMeules W Luo AS Duncan A Wielgosz Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular disease: risks and implications for care. Nat Rev Cardiol 2009 6 712 22 10.1038/nrcardio.2009.163 19770848

[10] EE Agardh A Ahlbom T Andersson S Efendic V Grill J Hallqvist Explanations of socioeconomic differences in excess risk of type 2 diabetes in Swedish men and women. Diabetes Care 2004 27 716 21 10.2337/diacare.27.3.716 14988291

[11] DF Cella EJ Orav AB Kornblith JC Holland PM Silberfarb KW Lee Socioeconomic status and cancer survival. J Clin Oncol 1991 9 1500 9 10.1200/JCO.1991.9.8.1500 2072149

[12] M Marmot Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet 2005 365 1099 104 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)74234-3 15781105

[13] P Hossain B Kawar M El Nahas Obesity and diabetes in the developing world—a growing challenge. N Engl J Med 2007 356 213 5 10.1056/NEJMp068177 17229948

[14] CY Jeon RP Lokken FB Hu RM van Dam Physical activity of moderate intensity and risk of type 2 diabetes a systematic review. Diabetes Care 2007 30 744 52 10.2337/dc06-1842 17327354

[15] E Agardh P Allebeck J Hallqvist T Moradi A Sidorchuk Type 2 diabetes incidence and socio-economic position: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2011 40 804 18 10.1093/ije/dyr029 21335614

[16] V Connolly N Unwin P Sherriff R Bilous W Kelly Diabetes prevalence and socioeconomic status: a population based study showing increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in deprived areas. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000 54 173 7 10.1136/jech.54.3.173 10746110

[17] A Espelt C Borrell AJ Roskam M Rodríguez-Sanz I Stirbu A Dalmau-Bueno Socioeconomic inequalities in diabetes mellitus across Europe at the beginning of the 21st century. Diabetologia 2008 51 1971 9 10.1007/s00125-008-1146-1 18779946

[18] JM Evans RW Newton DA Ruta TM MacDonald AD Morris Socio-economic status, obesity and prevalence of Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabet Med 2000 17 478 80 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2000.00309.x 10975218

[19] P Meadows Variation of diabetes mellitus prevalence in general practice and its relation to deprivation. Diabet Med 2000 17 478 80 10975218

[20] JM Robbins V Vaccarino H Zhang SV Kasl Socioeconomic status and type 2 diabetes in African American and non-Hispanic white women and men: evidence from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Public Health 2001 91 76 83 10.2105/AJPH.91.1.76 11189829

[21] M Tang Y Chen D Krewski Gender-related differences in the association between socioeconomic status and self-reported diabetes. Int J Epidemiol 2003 32 381 5 10.1093/ije/dyg075 12777423

[22] M abu Sayeed L Ali MZ Hussain MA Rumi A Banu AK Azad Khan Effect of socioeconomic risk factors on the difference in prevalence of diabetes between rural and urban populations in Bangladesh. Diabetes Care 1997 20 551 5 10.2337/diacare.20.4.551 9096979

[23] O Ali TT Tan O Sakinah BA Khalid LL Wu ML Ng Prevalence of NIDDM and impaired glucose tolerance in aborigines and Malays in Malaysia and their relationship to sociodemographic, health, and nutritional factors. Diabetes Care 1993 16 68 75 10.2337/diacare.16.1.68 8422835

[24] U Illangasekera S Rambodagalla S Tennakoon Temporal trends in the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in a rural community in Sri Lanka. J R Soc Promot Health 2004 124 92 4 10.1177/146642400412400214 15067982

[25] A Ramachandran C Snehalatha A Kapur V Vijay V Mohan AK Das High prevalence of diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in India: National Urban Diabetes Survey. Diabetologia 2001 44 1094 101 10.1007/s001250100627 11596662

[26] World Health Organization. Noncommunicable disease risk factors and socioeconomic inequalities - what are the links? A multicountry analysis of noncommunicable disease surveillance data. 2010. Available: http://www.wpro.who.int/publications/PUB_9789290614746/en/. Accessed: 1 February 2017.

[27] Y Xie X Zhou Income inequality in today’s China. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014 111 6928 33 10.1073/pnas.1403158111 24778237

[28] H Zhang W Xu AK Dahl Z Xu HX Wang X Qi Relation of socio-economic status to impaired fasting glucose and Type 2 diabetes: findings based on a large population-based cross-sectional study in Tianjin, China. Diabet Med 2013 30 e157 62 10.1111/dme.12156 23397898

[29] C Le D Jun S Zhankun L Yichun T Jie Socioeconomic differences in diabetes prevalence, awareness, and treatment in rural southwest China. Trop Med Int Health 2011 16 1070 6 10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02805.x 21668591

[30] C Fu Y Chen F Wang X Wang J Song Q Jiang High prevalence of hyperglycaemia and the impact of high household income in transforming rural China. BMC Public Health 2011 11 862 10.1186/1471-2458-11-862 22078718

[31] F Xu XM Yin M Zhang E Leslie R Ware N Owen Family average income and diagnosed type 2 diabetes in urban and rural residents in regional mainland China. Diabet Med 2006 23 1239 46 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01965.x 17054602

[32] Leung GM, Lu J-FR, Meng Q. Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, Health Systems of. In International Encyclopedia of Public Health. 2nd edition. Oxford: Academic Press; 2017.

[33] Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. 2000. Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed: 23 June 2016.

[34] J Wu X Cheng L Qiu T Xu G Zhu J Han Prevalence and clustering of major cardiovascular risk factors in China: a recent cross-sectional survey. Medicine 2016 95 e2712 10.1097/MD.0000000000002712 26962771

[35] M Liu J Wang Y He B Jiang L Wu Y Wang Awareness, treatment and control of type 2 diabetes among Chinese elderly and its changing trend for past decade. BMC Public Health 2016 16 278 10.1186/s12889-016-2874-7 26987372

[36] M Zhou T Astell-Burt Y Bi X Feng Y Jiang Y Li Geographical variation in diabetes prevalence and detection in china: multilevel spatial analysis of 98,058 adults. Diabetes Care 2015 38 72 81 10.2337/dc14-1100 25352654

[37] J Yu Y Ma S Yang K Pang Y Yu Y Tao Risk factors for cardiovascular disease and their clustering among adults in Jilin (China). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;13:ijerph13010070.

[38] B Xue JB Tan F Ning JP Sun KY Zhang L Liu Association between serum uric acid and prevalence of type 2 diabetes diagnosed using HbA1c criteria among Chinese Adults in Qingdao, China. Biomed Environ Sci 2015 28 884 93 26777908

[39] S Xu Z Jiayong B Li H Zhu H Chang W Shi Prevalence and clustering of cardiovascular disease risk factors among Tibetan adults in China: a population-based study. PLoS One 2015 10 e0129966 10.1371/journal.pone.0129966 26047133

[40] S Bu D Ruan Z Yang X Xing W Zhao N Wang Sex-specific prevalence of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors in the middle-aged population of China: a subgroup analysis of the 2007-2008 China National Diabetes and Metabolic Disorders Study. PLoS One 2015 10 e0139039 10.1371/journal.pone.0139039 26406982

[41] F Bragg L Li M Smith Y Guo Y Chen I Millwood Associations of blood glucose and prevalent diabetes with risk of cardiovascular disease in 500 000 adult Chinese: the China Kadoorie Biobank. Diabet Med 2014 31 540 51 10.1111/dme.12392 24344928

[42] Z Xia Z Wang Q Cai J Yang X Zhang T Yang Prevalence and risk factors of type 2 diabetes in the adults in Haikou City, Hainan Island, China. Iran J Public Health 2013 42 222 30 23641399

[43] F Wu Y Guo P Kowal Y Jiang M Yu X Li Prevalence of major chronic conditions among older Chinese adults: the Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health (SAGE) Wave 1. PLoS One 2013 8 e74176 10.1371/journal.pone.0074176 24069278

[44] KW Wang ZK Shu L Cai JQ Wu W Wei Assessment of the magnitude of contextual and individual demographic effects on diabetes mellitus and glucose intolerance in rural southwest China: a multilevel analysis. PLoS One 2013 8 e68553 10.1371/journal.pone.0068553 23874667

[45] C Le L Lin D Jun H Jianhui Z Keying C Wenlong The economic burden of type 2 diabetes mellitus in rural southwest China. Int J Cardiol 2013 165 273 7 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.08.039 21908062

[46] S Yan J Li S Li B Zhang S Du P Gordon-Larsen The expanding burden of cardiometabolic risk in China: The China Health and Nutrition Survey. Obes Rev 2012 13 810 21 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.01016.x 22738663

[47] FL Chen PY Chen Health disparities among occupations in Taiwan: a population study. J Occup Health 2012 54 147 53 10.1539/joh.11-0052-FS 22322107

[48] Z Shi B Yuan C Zhang M Zhou G Holmboe-Ottesen Egg consumption and the risk of diabetes in adults, Jiangsu, China. Nutrition 2011 27 194 8 10.1016/j.nut.2010.01.012 20471806

[49] WY Lin F Xaiver Pi-Sunyer CC Chen LE Davidson CS Liu TC Li Coffee consumption is inversely associated with type 2 diabetes in Chinese. Eur J Clin Invest 2011 41 659 66 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2010.02455.x 21226707

[50] S Kavikondala CQ Jiang WS Zhang KK Cheng TH Lam GM Leung Intergenerational influences on diabetes in a developing population: the Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study. Am J Hum Biol 2011 23 747 54 10.1002/ajhb.21206 21987430

[51] W Wei SY Liu FF Zeng SP Yao HT Zhang G Wan Type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance in North-China-based rural community adults. Public Health 2010 124 593 601 10.1016/j.puhe.2010.05.014 20846702

[52] X Zhou L Ji Y Luo X Han X Zhang X Sun Risk factors associated with the presence of diabetes in Chinese communities in Beijing. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2009 86 233 8 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.09.014 19836096

[53] F Ning ZC Pang YH Dong WG Gao HR Nan SJ Wang Risk factors associated with the dramatic increase in the prevalence of diabetes in the adult Chinese population in Qingdao, China. Diabet Med 2009 26 855 63 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02791.x 19719705

[54] D Hu L Sun P Fu J Xie J Lu J Zhou Prevalence and risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Chinese adult population: the InterASIA Study. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2009 84 288 95 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.02.021 19442859

[55] KL Chou I Chi Functional disability related to diabetes mellitus in older Hong Kong Chinese adults. Gerontology 2005 51 334 9 10.1159/000086371 16110236

[56] TS Yu TW Wong Socioeconomic distribution of health and health care utilization in a new town in Hong Kong, China. Biomed Environ Sci 2004 17 234 45 15386950

[57] J Woo SC Ho A Sham MM Sea KS Lam TH Lam Diet and glucose tolerance in a Chinese population. Eur J Clin Nutr 2003 57 523 30 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1601586 12700613

[58] KT Chen CJ Chen EW Gregg MM Engelgau KM Narayan Prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Taiwan: Ethnic variation and risk factors. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2001 51 59 66 10.1016/S0168-8227(00)00200-X 11137183

[59] KT Chen CJ Chen EW Gregg DF Williamson KM Narayan High prevalence of impaired fasting glucose and type 2 diabetes mellitus in Penghu Islets, Taiwan: evidence of a rapidly emerging epidemic? Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1999 44 59 69 10.1016/S0168-8227(99)00025-X 10414941

[60] XR Pan WY Yang GW Li J Liu Prevalence of diabetes and its risk factors in China, 1994. Diabetes Care 1997 20 1664 9 10.2337/diacare.20.11.1664 9353605

[61] P Chou MJ Liao ST Tsai Associated risk factors of diabetes in Kin-Hu, Kinmen. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 1994 26 229 35 10.1016/0168-8227(94)90065-5 7736904

[62] TY Tai LM Chuang HP Wu CJ Chen Association of body build with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and hypertension among Chinese adults: a 4-year follow-up study. Int J Epidemiol 1992 21 511 7 10.1093/ije/21.3.511 1634313

[63] J Woo SC Ho S Lau J Lau YK Yuen Prevalence of cognitive impairment and associated factors among elderly Hong Kong Chinese aged 70 years and over. Neuroepidemiology 1994 13 50 8 10.1159/000110358 8190206

[64] WG Saywell Education in China since Mao. Can J High Educ 1980 10 1 27

[65] MA Faia Selection by certification: a neglected variable in stratification research. Am J Sociol 1981 86 1093 111 10.1086/227355

[66] JB Wallach MJ Rey A socioeconomic analysis of obesity and diabetes in New York City. Prev Chronic Dis 2009 6 A108 19527580

[67] S Dinca-Panaitescu M Dinca-Panaitescu T Bryant I Daiski B Pilkington D Raphael Diabetes prevalence and income: results of the Canadian Community Health Survey. Health Policy 2011 99 116 23 10.1016/j.healthpol.2010.07.018 20724018

[68] A Ramachandran S Mary A Yamuna N Murugesan C Snehalatha High prevalence of diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors associated with urbanization in India. Diabetes Care 2008 31 893 8 10.2337/dc07-1207 18310309

[69] B Galobardes M Shaw DA Lawlor JW Lynch G Davey Smith Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1). J Epidemiol Community Health 2006 60 7 12 10.1136/jech.2004.023531 16361448

[70] G Turrell Income non-reporting: implications for health inequalities research. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000 54 207 14 10.1136/jech.54.3.207 10746115

[71] N Krieger DR Williams NE Moss Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health 1997 18 341 78 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.18.1.341 9143723

[72] The World Bank. Poverty & Equity, China. 2016. Available: http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/CHN. Accessed: 29 August 2016.

[73] SP Phillips K Hamberg Women’s relative immunity to the socio-economic health gradient: artifact or real? Glob Health Action 2015 8 27259 10.3402/gha.v8.27259

[74] JJ Walker SJ Livingstone HM Colhoun RS Lindsay JA McKnight AD Morris Effect of socioeconomic status on mortality among people With Type 2 Diabetes A study from the Scottish Diabetes Research Network Epidemiology Group. Diabetes Care 2011 34 1127 32 10.2337/dc10-1862 21421800

[75] P Liberatos BG Link JL Kelsey The measurement of social class in epidemiology. Epidemiol Rev 1988 10 87 121 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036030 3066632

[76] R Haynes S Gale Deprivation and poor health in rural areas: inequalities hidden by averages. Health Place 2000 6 275 85 10.1016/S1353-8292(00)00009-5 11027953

[77] S Barnett P Roderick D Martin I Diamond H Wrigley Interrelations between three proxies of health care need at the small area level: an urban/rural comparison. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002 56 754 61 10.1136/jech.56.10.754 12239201

[78] MS Gilthorpe RC Wilson Rural/urban differences in the association between deprivation and healthcare utilisation. Soc Sci Med 2003 57 2055 63 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00071-6 14512237

[79] D Martin P Brigham P Roderick S Barnett I Diamond The (mis) representation of rural deprivation. Environ Plann A 2000 32 735 51 10.1068/a32130

Additional Material


Journal of Global Health (ISSN 2047-2986), Edinburgh University Global Health Society
Designed by