You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Racial inequality, racial discrimination and obesity incidence in adults from the ELSA-Brasil cohort
  1. Amanda Viana Machado1,
  2. Lidyane V Camelo2,
  3. Dora Chor3,
  4. Rosane H Griep4,
  5. Joanna M N Guimarães3,
  6. Luana Giatti2,
  7. Sandhi Maria Barreto2
  1. 1Postgraduate Program in Public Health, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
  2. 2Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
  3. 3Department of Epidemiology and Quantitative Methods, National School of Public Health, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  4. 4Laboratory of Health and Environment Education, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation-National School of Public Health, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  1. Correspondence to Dr Lidyane V Camelo, Departament of Preventive and Social Medicine, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 30130-100, Minas Gerais, Brazil; lidyanecamelo{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Background This study investigated whether self-reported race/skin colour and perceived racial discrimination predict higher obesity incidence after approximately 4-year follow-up of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil). We also investigated whether these associations are modified by educational level.

Methods Following exclusion of individuals defined as obese (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) at baseline, associations between race/skin colour and obesity incidence between the first (2008–2010) and second (2012–2014) visits were investigated in 10 130 participants. Next, associations between perceived racial discrimination and obesity incidence among black (n=1532) and brown (n=2958) individuals were investigated separately. Racial discrimination (yes/no) was assessed using the Lifetime Major Event Scale. Logistic regression models adjusted for age, sex and research site were used. All analyses were stratified for educational level.

Results Obesity risk was higher in Blacks with high education compared with white individuals to the same education level (OR: 2.22; 95% CI 1.62 to 3.04) following adjustments. After adjustments, obesity incidence was higher among black individuals reporting racial discrimination compared with peers who did not report this experience, but only among the low education group (OR: 1.64; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.51). No statistical association with perceived discrimination was observed among brown individuals.

Conclusion Results are congruent with findings from other studies reporting associations between racial inequality and obesity incidence and also suggest racial discrimination may be one of the mechanisms leading to such inequalities. Also, it supports the paradox theory by which education modify the association in distinct directions.

  • cohort studies
  • obesity
  • health inequalities

Data availability statement

Data are available on reasonable request. The data used in this study are available for research proposal on request to the ELSA’s Datacenter and to the ELSA’s Publications Committee (publiELSA). Additional information can be obtained from the ELSA’s Datacenter (estatisticaelsa@ufrgs.br) and from the ELSA Coordinator from the Research Center of Minas Gerais (sbarreto@medicina.ufmg.br).

https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2020-214740

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available on reasonable request. The data used in this study are available for research proposal on request to the ELSA’s Datacenter and to the ELSA’s Publications Committee (publiELSA). Additional information can be obtained from the ELSA’s Datacenter (estatisticaelsa@ufrgs.br) and from the ELSA Coordinator from the Research Center of Minas Gerais (sbarreto@medicina.ufmg.br).

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it first published. The provenance and peer review statement has been included.

    • Contributors AVM, LVC and SMB wrote the analysis plan and had the primary responsibility for data analysis and drafting the manuscript. DC, RHG, JMNG and LG reviewed and commented on the data analysis, interpretation and drafts. Each author contributed important intellectual content during manuscript drafting or revision and accepts accountability for the overall work by ensuring that questions pertaining to the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

    • Funding This study was funded by the Brazilian Ministry of Health (Department of Science and Technology) and the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (FINEP, Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos and CNPq, National Research Council), Grant No 01 06 0010.00, 01 06 0212.00, 01 06 0300.00, 01 06 0278.00, 01 06 0115.00 and 01 06 0071.00. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brasil (CAPES) Finance Code 001. AVM received a scholarchip from the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). LVC was supported by a research grant from Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil (Programa Institucional de Auxílio a Pesquisa de Docentes Recém-Contratados). SMB, DC, LG and RHG are research fellows of the National Research Council (CNPq). SMB is supported by a research grant (Pesquisador Mineiro) from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), Brazil.

    • Disclaimer The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.