ArticleHealth economics2025
Inequality of Opportunity in Body Mass: Evidence From Australia.
Article in Health economics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper extends current knowledge about inequality of opportunity in body mass in Australia. Drawing on 2013 and 2017 Household, Income, and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey data, our empirical strategy comprises of mean-based and unconditional quantile regression techniques. We find that inequality of opportunity accounts for a non-trivial share of body mass inequality. Our results based on waist-to-height ratio reveal estimates of 10%-14%, which are much larger than previously published estimates based on body mass index (BMI). Our estimates are lower-bound values based on 13 observable circumstance variables. Relaxing the homogeneity assumption, for instance, increases estimates by 1.7-3 percentage points. Applying the Shapley-Shorrocks decomposition procedure, age and parents' socio-economic status are identified as leading circumstance factors. This finding is refined when quantiles of the body mass distribution are evaluated. Age's role is diminished at the clinically risky upper quantiles. By contrast, parents' socio-economic status is the single most important circumstance factor at the upper quantiles. Investigating by gender groups, inequality of opportunity is greater among women than men, with parents' socio-economic status playing a critical role in this disparity. Taking a life course perspective, circumstances' influence shows weakening over time, while effort is more impactful at later life stages. Overall, our findings underscore that anti-obesity campaigns should tackle early life social inequality, in addition to empowering personal responsibility later in life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.