Poverty Shaves Years off Life

A meta-analysis found that being of low socioeconomic status was associated with almost as many years of lost life as was a sedentary lifestyle.

 

Image Source

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Back in 2011 member countries of the World Health Organization, the WHO, came up with a plan to cut mortality from noncommunicable diseases 25 percent by the year 2025. The program was thus called the 25 X 25 Initiative. And it identified various health risk factors, such as smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes and a sedentary lifestyle. What the Initiative did not include as a risk factor for poor health was poverty.

An international team of researchers thus decided to look at poverty as a possible driver of noncommunicable illness. They pored over data from 48 previously published studies that included socioeconomic information. Together these studies include some 1.75 million subjects from seven high-income countries in the WHO. And the research team found that being poor was more dangerous than obesity or high alcohol intake. The study is in the journal The Lancet.

[Silvia Stringhini et al., Socioeconomic status and the 25 × 25 risk factors as determinants of premature mortality: a multicohort study and meta-analysis of 1·7 million men and women]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The results were reported in terms of years of life lost between the ages of 40 and 85. Being a current smoker was associated with 4.8 years of lost life, diabetes with 3.9 years and physical inactivity with 2.4 years. Being of low socioeconomic status was almost as bad as inactivity, with 2.1 years of lost life. High blood pressure only accounted for 1.6 years lost and high alcohol intake was good for—or bad for—0.5 years gone.

Because of these findings, the researchers wrote that the results “suggest that socioeconomic

Circumstances…should be treated as a target for local and global health strategies, health risk surveillance, interventions, and policy.” In other words, part of treating disease is treating poverty.

—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe