ArticleInternational journal of obesity (2005)2026
Intersectional inequality in general and central obesity: cross-sectional UK Biobank study.
Article in International journal of obesity (2005), 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople exist at a combination of different individual and neighbourhood deprivations. Each of these combinations may have a unique impact on health. However, little is known about the intersectional inequality of these combinations on general and central obesity, including when considering their demographics. This study aims to answer these questions.
methodsThe sample comprised 452,339 participants from the UK Biobank study. Individuals were grouped into 320 intersectional strata according to their household income, neighbourhood deprivation, sex, ethnicity and age. Linear and logistic multilevel analysis of individual heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy was used to establish the total, additive and interactive inequality of body mass index (BMI), fat mass index (FMI), and waist to height ratio (WHtR), as well as the associated obesity classifications.
results6.5%, 25.2% and 9.1% of the total variation in BMI, FMI and WHtR, respectively, was due to inequality between the strata. Of this, 26.5%, 3.5% and 22.0% is interactive. 79, 58 and 93 strata for BMI, FMI and WHtR demonstrate a significant interactive effect. We found some patterns; for example, affluent white women have an advantaged interactive effect, whilst deprived black women have a disadvantaged effect. Meanwhile men experience the inverse relationship. The relationship between individual and neighbourhood deprivation is not universally experienced by all strata. For example, black men living in areas of high deprivation have higher BMIs as their household income increases.
conclusionsA large proportion of variation in general and central obesity is due to intersectional inequality, with up to 26.5% being interactive. It is important that these intersectional effects are considered when designing policy interventions to avoid policy failure, such as by focussing on groups with high total and interactive risk.
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.