Measures of work stress and cortisol secretion measures in all participants at Whitehall II Phase 7, adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, time of waking and time since waking.

<p>CAR, cortisol awakening response; Slope, cortisol decline over the day</p><p>Data were presented by 1-Standard Deviation increase of each dimension of JDC/ERI models. Job strain was calculated by subtracting control score from demand score; ERI ratio was calculated by the formula <i>effort/reward*0.5</i> and logarithm transformed.</p

Participant characteristics with data available for work stress and cortisol secretion at Whitehall II Phase 7 (2002–2004) ^#.

<p>^#Within the 2,126 participants included in current analysis, 2,094 and 2,090 had complete data for job strain and ERI measures, respectively. CAR, cortisol awakening response; Slope, cortisol decline across the day.</p><p>^b Cortisol data adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity.</p><p>* P<0.05, ** P<0.01.</p

Diurnal cortisol decline by Effort-Reward-Imbalance (ERI) status.

<p><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0081020#pone-0081020-g001" target="_blank">Figure 1</a>. Diurnal cortisol decline (adjusted means including 95% CI) by ERI status, adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, time of waking and time since waking. ERI: effort-reward-imbalance ratio; SD: standard deviation.</p

Participant Characteristics at Whitehall II Phase 7 (2002–2004).

<p>SD: standard deviation.</p

Correlation matrix for the work stress measures within participants included in analysis.

<p>The spearman rank correlation coefficient (P) are reported</p>*<p>p<0.001, ** p<0.05</p

Salivary cortisol levels at waking and 30-min-later by job-demand in women and men.

<p><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0081020#pone-0081020-g002" target="_blank">Figure 2</a>. Salivary cortisol levels (adjusted means including 95% CI) at waking and 30-min later by job demand status in women and men, adjusted for age, gender, ethnicity, time of waking and time since waking. SD: standard deviation.</p

Absolute and relative increases in obesity prevalence by education level from 1988 to 2012.

a<p>Age adjusted prevalence ratio.</p>b<p>Age adjusted prevalence difference.</p><p>Test for homogeneity across education levels *p<0.001 † p = 0.50.</p

Educational Inequalities in Obesity among Mexican Women: Time-Trends from 1988 to 2012

<div><p>Background</p><p>Obesity is one of the leading causes of global morbidity and mortality. Trends in educational inequalities in obesity prevalence among Mexican women have not been analysed systematically to date.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Data came from four nationally representative surveys (1988, 1999, 2006, and 2012) of a total of 51 220 non-pregnant women aged 20 to 49. Weight and height were measured during home visits. Education level (higher education, high school, secondary, primary or less) was self-reported. We analysed trends in relative and absolute educational inequalities in obesity prevalence separately for urban and rural areas.</p><p>Results</p><p>Nationally, age-standardised obesity prevalence increased from 9.3% to 33.7% over 25 years to 2012. Obesity prevalence was inversely associated with education level in urban areas at all survey waves. In rural areas, obesity prevalence increased markedly but there was no gradient with education level at any survey. The relative index of inequality in urban areas declined over the period (2.87 (95%CI: 1.94, 4.25) in 1988, 1.55 (95%CI: 1.33, 1.80) in 2012, trend p<0.001). Obesity increased 5.92 fold (95%CI: 4.03, 8.70) among urban women with higher education in the period 1988–2012 compared to 3.23 fold (95%CI: 2.88, 3.63) for urban women with primary or no education. The slope index of inequality increased in urban areas from 1988 to 2012. Over 0.5 M cases would be avoided if the obesity prevalence of women with primary or less education was the same as for women with higher education.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The expected inverse association between education and obesity was observed in urban areas of Mexico. The declining trend in relative educational inequalities in obesity was due to a greater increase in obesity prevalence among higher educated women. In rural areas there was no social gradient in the association between education level and obesity across the four surveys.</p></div

Relative index of inequality (RII) stratified by birth cohort in urban areas.

<p>*p<0.001.</p>∼<p>p<0.05.</p

Age standardised distribution of women for selected characteristics 1988–2012.

<p>Standard errors in parenthesis.</p