Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Dec 1;18(12):e0295302. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295302

Educational patterns of health behaviors and body mass index: A longitudinal multiple correspondence analysis of a middle-aged general population, 2007–2016

Ana Silvia Ibarra-Sanchez 1,*, Birgit Abelsen 1, Gang Chen 2, Torbjørn Wisløff 3
Editor: Petri Böckerman4
PMCID: PMC10691680  PMID: 38039296

Abstract

Social differences in body mass index and health behaviors are a major public health challenge. The uneven distribution of unhealthy body mass index and of unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, physical inactivity, and harmful alcohol consumption has been shown to mediate social inequalities in chronic diseases. While differential exposures to these health variables have been investigated, the extent to which they vary over the lifetime in the same population and their relationship with level of education is not well understood. This study examines patterns of body mass index and multiple health behaviors (smoking, physical activity and alcohol consumption), and investigates their association with education level among adults living in Northern Norway. It presents findings from a longitudinal multiple correspondence analysis of the Tromsø Study. Longitudinal data from 8,906 adults aged 32–87 in 2007–2008, with repeated measurements in 2015–2016 were retrieved from the survey’s sixth and seventh waves. The findings suggest that most in the study population remained in the same categories of body mass index and the three health behaviors at the follow-up, with a clear educational gradient in healthy patterns. That is, both healthy changes and maintained healthy categories were associated with the highest education levels. Estimating differential exposures to mediators of health inequalities could benefit policy priority setting for tackling inequalities in health.

Introduction

Social differences in health persist and are growing markedly, even in increasingly affluent countries with welfare states [13]. Chronic diseases account for the largest part of the social gradient in life expectancy and total mortality [46]. Smoking, harmful alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, poor diet and high body mass index (BMI) increase the risk of developing chronic disease [7, 8] and are also unequally distributed across socioeconomic groups [9]. Monitoring social inequalities in the burden of chronic diseases and their determinants can help in developing policies to improve health equality.

In Norway, absolute and relative inequalities in all-cause mortality between education groups are among the largest in Europe [10]. Women and men with the highest education levels live five to six years longer and have better health than those with the lowest education levels [11]. In addition, large socioeconomic inequalities in high BMI and single health behaviors have been observed [12]. Smoking, physical inactivity, alcohol dependency, lower fruit and vegetables consumption are more common among people with lower socioeconomic conditions [11, 1318].

Although there is extensive research exploring social inequalities in BMI and in individual health behaviors, less is known about social differentials in multiple health behaviors and BMI within the same study cohort. Moreover, there is a knowledge gap in the extent to which these variables vary over time in the same population and how these patterns relate to educational attainment.

First, it is important to address many health behaviors together with BMI, due to the increased risk of chronic diseases and all-cause mortality associated with a higher number of unhealthy modifiable risk factors [8]. Second, following the same individuals over an extended period conveys a broader picture of the long-term exposure effects on the outcome of interest, thereby making it possible to understand the underlying causes of trends or systematic patterns over time.

Previous studies on health behavior trends and their association with diverse social categories have reported contrasting findings. A repeated cross-sectional study from the United States reported the tendency of health behaviors to cluster and persist over time. In this study, the largest group at each time point was comprised of individuals who neither consume fruit and vegetables nor engage in risky behaviors such as smoking and drinking. This study found that males and, in general, participants with low income and education levels were more likely to be in this group [19]. A longitudinal study that followed British men over an extended period found that unhealthy behaviors such as smoking, physical inactivity and high alcohol consumption were strongly associated with low socioeconomic status, and these associations remained over time [20]. A recent longitudinal study using repeated cross-sectional data from Germany found educational variation in BMI and multiple health behaviors, both separately and collectively [21]. Studies on Scandinavian populations that addressed more than two health behaviors found educational inequalities in social participation [22] and motivation to increase physical activity [23], in addition to smoking and physical activity. Additional empirical contributions to health behavior dynamics and their relationship with socioeconomic status over time have shown that different indicators of socioeconomic position may shape health behavior over people’s lifetime through different pathways [24, 25]. However, observations from longitudinal studies have suggested that a high percentage of individuals follow a pattern of long-term adherence to the same health behaviors [20] and to the same BMI category [26]. Longitudinal studies that follow BMI and multiple health behaviors in the same study sample are scarce, and this study adds to the literature by investigating social inequality in BMI and health behaviors with longitudinal data that include both men and women. Therefore, this paper aims to research the relationship between the patterns of BMI and three health behaviors (smoking, physical activity and alcohol consumption) and education level using longitudinal data from a population-based health survey of people living in Tromsø, Norway.

Materials and methods

Population study and sample

The Tromsø Study is a prospective cohort of residents of the municipality of Tromsø in Northern Norway, which has about 80,000 inhabitants. The study consists of seven surveys (Tromsø 1–7) conducted from 1974 to 2016 with representative samples of the population [27]. A total of 12,984 men and women aged 30–87 participated in Tromsø 6 (2007–2008), and 21,083 men and women aged 40–99 participated in Tromsø 7 (2015–2016). By the sixth wave of the Tromsø Study, data on health behavior were standardized. To study BMI and health behavior dynamics in the same population, eligible participants for this longitudinal study were those who participated in both Tromsø 6 and 7 (N = 8,906). The characteristics of the participants of Tromsø 6, Tromsø 7, and this cohort sample are presented in S1 Table.

The study was approved by the regional committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (ID: REK 2019/607). Informed consents were obtained from all study participants. In addition, consent for future usage of data for research purpose was obtained.

Variables

This study focuses on BMI and three health behaviors (smoking, physical activity and alcohol consumption). The variable categories for BMI and the three health behaviors were coded to fit health recommendations. That is, to avoid smoking and high alcohol consumption (more than 14 units per week for men and seven units per week for women), engage in physical activity for at least 150 minutes per week and maintain a normal BMI (18.5–24.9 kg/m2) [2832].

Smoking

Participants’ smoking status was obtained from the question: “Do/did you smoke daily? a) Yes, now b) Yes, previously c) Never”. A variable was coded to represent these three possible answers to this question.

Alcohol consumption

A variable of alcohol consumption in units per week was created based on questions concerning frequency and units of consumption. The responses to both questions were converted into numerical values to estimate the units per week (units per week = units × frequency). The answers to these questions were harmonized by the survey as follows: 1) “How often do you usually drink alcohol?” a) Never = 0, b) Monthly or less frequently = 0.25, c) Two to four times a month = 0.75, d) Two to three times a week = 2.5, and e) Four or more times a week = 5.5. 2) “How many units of alcohol (one beer, glass of wine, or other beverage) do you usually drink when you consume alcohol?” a) One to two = 1.5, b) Three to four = 3.5, c) Five to six = 5.5, d) Seven to nine = 8 and e) Ten or more = 12. The cut-off point for high alcohol consumption was more than fourteen units per week for men and more than seven units per week for women, as recommended by current health guidelines [29, 30].

Physical activity

A variable indicating the amount of physical activity in minutes per week was created based on questions regarding frequency and duration (minutes per week = duration × frequency). The answers to these questions were harmonized by the survey as follows: 1) “How often do you exercise (i.e., walking, skiing, swimming, or training any sports)?” a) Never = 0, b) Less than once a week = 0.5, c) Once a week = 1, d) Two to three times per week = 2.5, and e) Approximately every day = 5. 2) “On average, how long do you exercise for?” a) Less than fifteen minutes = 10, b) Fifteen to twenty-nine minutes = 22, c) Thirty to sixty minutes = 45, d) More than one hour = 90. Respondents were classified as having either less than 150 minutes or 150 or more minutes of physical activity per week as recommended by current health guidelines [3032].

Body Mass Index (BMI)

BMI was calculated using the objective measure of the participant’s height and weight (BMI = weight [kg] / height2 [m2]). Respondents were classified according to standard BMI classification: underweight (under 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.5 to under 25 kg/m2), overweight (25 to under 30 kg/m2) and obese (30 kg/m2 and over) [33].

Education

Education levels were ascertained from the question: “What is the highest education level you have completed? a) Primary/partly secondary education (up to 10 years of schooling), b) Upper secondary education (minimum of three years), c) Tertiary education, short: college/university, less than four years, d) Tertiary education, long: college/university, four years or more.”

Statistical analysis

Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) is a multivariate statistical method of dimension reduction that has become one of the standard tools for interpreting survey data in the social sciences [34]. It is applied to obtain a spatial map of the data’s significant dimensions, where proximities between points and the map’s other geometric features indicate associations between dimensions [35]. This method reveals the data’s main structures, such as the patterns of correlations between variables or similarities between the observations within complex datasets [36]. In MCA, a multi-way contingency table is transformed into an indicator matrix or a Burt matrix and then the algorithm of correspondence analysis is applied [37]. Since MCA is a plot of the chi-square distances of dimensions, the plot can be regarded as a visualization of the chi-square test when taking more than two variables into account. The plot can be seen as a way of reporting variability, rather than testing whether p-values are below a certain pre-specified value [38]. An additional advantage of this method is that there is no need to meet assumptions requirements [39, 40].

Thirty-three variables were created to represent the possible changes in each participant’s BMI and health behavior categories, including those categories that remained unchanged at the time of the follow-up. The solution space of was constructed by excluding participants with missing data and categories with a very low count (less than 1%), as recommended by Jones and colleagues [20]. To study the relationship with socioeconomic position, education level was included as a supplementary variable. Supplementary points define additional profiles that are not used to establish the solution space but are projected onto the space afterwards [36]. Analyses stratified by sex and age were performed to account for confounding in the relationship between education and health behavior. The age groups were chosen based on Norway’s 1959 education reform, which made seven years of primary education mandatory. Thus, two age groups were created (age 32–47 and 48–87). All analyses were performed using R version 4.1.1.

Results

Daily smoking decreased notably between the baseline and follow-up, and while the prevalence of low physical activity also decreased, high alcohol consumption and obesity increased (S1 Table). A summary of the thirty-three variables representing either a changed or maintained category, stratified by sex, is displayed in Table 1. Most respondents had not changed their behavior and BMI category at the time of the follow-up survey, with smoking and alcohol consumption having the smallest number of respondents who changed category. Physical activity and BMI had a larger number of respondents whose category changed at the time of the follow-up survey. The stratification by sex showed small relative differences among the portion of men and women who underwent changes in smoking, BMI, and physical activity. Regarding alcohol consumption, the percentage of women who changed their behavior was larger compared to men, which can be partially explained by the higher threshold set for men to fall into the category of high alcohol consumption (fourteen or more units per week).

Table 1. Categories of change or maintenance in BMI and health behaviors between baseline and follow-up surveys in the cohort sample and stratified by sex.

      Total Men Women
  Baseline Follow-up n (%) n (%) n (%)
Daily smoking Now Now 895 10.0 379 9.2 516 10.8
  Now Before 661 7.4 296 7.2 365 7.6
  Now Never 14 0.2 5 0.1 9 0.2
  Before Now 152 1.7 76 1.8 76 1.6
  Before Before 3 370 37.8 1 690 40.9 1 680 35.2
  Before Never 254 2.9 118 2.9 136 2.8
  Never Now 10 0.1 6 0.1 4 0.1
  Never Before 125 1.4 53 1.3 72 1.5
  Never Never 3 241 36.4 1 434 34.7 1 807 37.8
  Missing 184 2.1 73 1.8 111 2.3
Alcohol consumption a High High 319 3.6 54 1.3 265 5.5
  High Low 187 2.1 51 1.2 136 2.8
  Low High 348 3.9 80 1.9 268 5.6
  Low Low 7 693 86.4 3 817 92.4 3 876 81.2
  Missing 359 4.0 128 3.1 231 4.8
Physical activity (min/week) ≥150 ≥150 1 432 16.1 622 15.1 810 17.0
  ≥150 <150 851 9.6 339 8.2 512 10.7
  <150 ≥150 1 412 15.9 664 16.1 748 15.7
  <150 <150 4 352 48.9 2 144 51.9 2 208 46.2
  Missing 859 9.6 361 8.7 498 10.4
BMI b Obese Obese 1 458 16.4 691 16.7 767 16.1
  Obese Overweight 274 3.1 144 3.5 130 2.7
  Obese Normal 9 0.1 4 0.1 5 0.1
  Obese Underweight 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
  Overweight Obese 612 6.9 282 6.8 330 6.9
  Overweight Overweight 3 002 33.7 1 684 40.8 1 318 27.6
  Overweight Normal 377 4.2 189 4.6 188 3.9
  Overweight Underweight 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0
  Normal Obese 7 0.1 0 0.0 7 0.1
  Normal Overweight 717 8.1 285 6.9 432 9.0
  Normal Normal 2 345 26.3 834 20.2 1 511 31.6
  Normal Underweight 32 0.4 2 0.0 30 0.6
  Underweight Obese 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
  Underweight Overweight 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
  Underweight Normal 16 0.2 2 0.0 14 0.3
  Underweight Underweight 23 0.3 3 0.1 20 0.4
  Missing 33 0.4 10 0.2 23 0.5

a High alcohol consumption: More than 14 units per week for men and more than 7 units per week for women.

b Classification of weight status by body mass index (BMI): underweight (under 18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.5 to under 25 kg/m2), overweight (25 to under 30 kg/m2) and obese (30 kg/m2 and over).

Figs 1 and 2 display the MCA plots for men, and Figs 3 and 4 presents the MCA plots for women. In the MCA, the axes or dimensions are interpreted by way of the contribution that each health behavior category makes to the total inertia, which is the term that describes the percentage of variability accounted for by the axis or dimension. The categories that contribute the most to the dimensions are the most significant in explaining the data set’s variability, whereas the categories that are far from the origin indicate major differences between these combinations and the average. In the MCA of men, the inertia of the first two dimensions was 54.6% for the younger group (32–47 years of age at baseline); the first dimension explained 38.6% of data variability (visualized by the x-axis) and the second, 16% (y-axis). For the older group (48–87 years old at baseline), the inertia of the first two dimensions was 47.4%; the first dimension explained 28.5% of data variability and the second, 18.9%. In the MCA of women, the inertia of the first two dimensions was 51.5% for the younger group; the first dimension explained 36% of data variability (visualized by the x-axis) and the second, 15.5% (y-axis). For the older group, the inertia of the first two dimensions was 51.3%; the first dimension explained 35.8% of data variability and the second, 15.5%.

Fig 1. MCA of BMI and health behavior patterns among men aged 32–47, with education as a supplementary variable.

Fig 1

Two-dimension plot of multiple correspondence among men aged 32–47 at baseline, 2007–2016. BMI: body mass index, normal weight: 18.5 to under 25 kg/m2, overweight: 25 to under 30 kg/m2, obese: 30 kg/m2 and over. Alcohol consumption: high: more than 14 units per week, low: up to 14 units per week. Physical activity: active: 150 min/week or more, inactive: less than 150 min/week. Education: level 1: primary/partly secondary education (up to 10 years of schooling), level 2: upper secondary education (minimum of 3 years), level 3: college/university (less than 4 years), level 4: college/university (4 years or more).

Fig 2. MCA of BMI and health behavior patterns among men aged 48–87, with education as a supplementary variable.

Fig 2

BMI: body mass index, normal weight: 18.5 to under 25 kg/m2, overweight: 25 to under 30 kg/m2, obese: 30 kg/m2 and over. Alcohol consumption: high: more than 14 units per week, low: up to 14 units per week. Physical activity: active: 150 min/week or more, inactive: less than 150 min/week. Education: level 1: primary/partly secondary education (up to 10 years of schooling), level 2: upper secondary education (minimum of 3 years), level 3: college/university (less than 4 years), level 4: college/university (4 years or more).

Fig 3. MCA of BMI and health behavior patterns among women aged 32–47, with education as a supplementary variable.

Fig 3

Two-dimension plot of multiple correspondence among women aged 32–47 at baseline, 2007–2016. BMI: body mass index, normal weight: 18.5 to under 25 kg/m2, overweight: 25 to under 30 kg/m2, obese: 30 kg/m2 and over. Alcohol consumption: high: more than 7 units per week, low: up to 7 units per week. Physical activity: active: 150 min/week or more, inactive: less than 150 min/week. Education: level 1: primary/partly secondary education (up to 10 years of schooling), level 2: upper secondary education (minimum of 3 years), level 3: college/university (less than 4 years), level 4: college/university (4 years or more).

Fig 4. MCA of BMI and health behavior patterns among women aged 48–87, with education as a supplementary variable.

Fig 4

BMI: body mass index, normal weight: 18.5 to under 25 kg/m2, overweight: 25 to under 30 kg/m2, obese: 30 kg/m2 and over. Alcohol consumption: high: more than 7 units per week, low: up to 7 units per week. Physical activity: active: 150 min/week or more, inactive: less than 150 min/week. Education: level 1: primary/partly secondary education (up to 10 years of schooling), level 2: upper secondary education (minimum of 3 years), level 3: college/university (less than 4 years), level 4: college/university (4 years or more).

In all the MCA figures, the healthy (green) and unhealthy (orange) categories are positioned on opposite sides of the map, showing a clear distinction between the groups with higher education levels being associated with healthier categories and the unhealthier categories being associated with the groups with lower education levels. The MCA’s visual output shows minimal, yet relevant differences between the age groups in both men and women. Among women, the differences between the first three education levels are smaller in the younger group. In this same group, a clear distinction can be seen between the patterns associated with the first three education levels and those associated with the highest education level group. The first three education levels are positioned on the left side of the map, indicating their association with a larger number of unhealthy patterns. The group with the highest education level appears separately on the opposite side of the map with a larger number of healthy categories, indicating that the highest education level is associated with healthier patterns. On the other hand, in the older group of women, there is a clear difference between the two lowest education levels and the other two groups with higher education levels. The two lowest education levels are associated with a larger number of unhealthy categories, whereas the higher education levels are associated with a larger number of healthy patterns. The opposite was observed among men, where the difference between the two lowest levels and the two highest levels was observed in the younger group, and the clustering of the first three levels was observed in the older group.

Discussion

This study examined patterns of BMI, smoking, physical activity and alcohol consumption and investigated their association with education level, from 2008 to 2016 using longitudinal data from a health survey in Norway. Most of the respondents did not change category of BMI and the three health behaviors between the baseline and follow-up surveys. Additionally, an educational gradient was found in these patterns, in which healthy changes and maintained healthy categories were associated with the highest educational levels. The main exception was high alcohol consumption, which was associated with higher education. With the exception of high alcohol consumption, our results were in line with a longitudinal study that followed multiple health behaviors among British men [20]. Moreover, they were similar to those reported in a Danish cohort study on several behaviors and risk factors such as obesity, in which those with high education levels had the highest alcohol intake levels [41]. A higher alcohol consumption has also been reported among groups with higher education levels in previous studies [42].

The results suggest individual’s tendency to maintain their health behavior and BMI category as they transition through middle age. This tendency has also been observed in other studies in regard to smoking, physical activity and alcohol consumption [20], as well as in obesity [26]. In our study, while most participants maintained their behavior and BMI category between the two time points, the graphical representation of the MCA displayed a clear distinction between those with lower education levels and those with higher education levels in terms of healthy changes and maintenance of healthy categories. It appears that the groups with lower education are not only facing a higher prevalence of many unhealthy categories, but once they are exposed to both detrimental categories of BMI and health behavior, they remained exposed to them over a longer period.

There is extensive literature about plausible mechanisms behind the well-known and complex relationships between education and health behaviors, and between education and BMI [4346]. For example, according to the mechanism of differential exposure, an individual’s socioeconomic position influences exposure to specific patterns, amounts, and duration of health risks [47]. Nevertheless, since follow-up studies on multiple trends of health behavior and BMI are rare, consistency has been hard to demonstrate. Another example is the mechanism of differential effects (also referred as differential vulnerability or susceptibility), which explains how the consequences of exposure to risk factors are also unevenly distributed across socioeconomic groups [45]. While the differential effects of exposure to risk factors across socioeconomic groups have been partly explained by interactions with other risk factors, the differences in effects have been observed even when all socioeconomic groups faced the same level of exposure [47, 48]. Findings from our follow-up study suggest that possibly, in addition to possible interactions with other unhealthy behavior factors—particularly among participants with lower education—a longer exposure time might be playing a significant role. Thus, socioeconomic differences in time of exposure to harmful combinations of health behaviors may also explain the differential effects across socioeconomic groups.

In Norway, possible country-specific explanations to the educational gradients in BMI and diverse health behaviors remain relatively unclear. For instance, a study that sought to examine whether educational differences in beliefs regarding the harms of smoking could explain the persistent educational gradient in smoking [49], the findings revealed no significant disparities in these beliefs between individuals with lower and higher levels of education. This suggests that other factors are likely to play a role in the persistent and substantial educational disparities in tobacco smoking in Norway. Regarding BMI, a study about obesity and their association with level of education found that obesity was most common among low educated individuals [50]. The authors discussed the suitability of the diffusion theory of innovations [51] to describe the observed trends and how the ability to cope with low incentives to everyday physical activity and with the negative effects from environments where unlimited quantities of cheap high-energy food are available, might be highest among individuals with higher levels of education. In terms of physical activity, it has been found that physical activity taking place in natural environments is not only the most popular form of weekly physical activity, but also has been found to be related to higher levels of education [52].

On the other hand, the association between higher education and higher alcohol consumption may have different explanations in the Norwegian context. For example, the transition towards a Southern European drinking pattern occurring primarily among the higher educated in the population has been discussed to be a contributing factor [53].

Potential limitations of our analyses include selection bias, both in the Tromsø 6 participation alone and among those who participated in both the sixth and seventh waves of the Tromsø Study. For instance, 20.0% of the Tromsø 6 participants reported having more than four years of university education, while 22.4% of the respondents who participated in both waves reported the same. The increased proportion of respondents with higher education levels is a clear indication of a selection bias among those with the highest education level, adding to the selection bias previously shown for participation in Tromsø 6 [54]. The analyses excluded participants with missing data for BMI and the behavior variables, which might suggest selection bias due to the relationship between lower socioeconomic conditions and underreporting in health surveys [55]. Furthermore, the Tromsø Study is limited in terms of ethnic and minority diversity. While the largest proportion of indigenous populations live in Northern Norway, where the municipality of Tromsø is also located, more than 90% of the participants in the sixth wave of the Tromsø Study identified themselves as non-indigenous [54]. Among the remaining percentage, the large majority considered themselves as part of another ethnic group. The potential underrepresentation of the different ethnic groups in the study sample can also contribute to selection bias. In this regard, selection biases can lead to internally valid observations that cannot be generalized to the target population [56].

Another limitation is that almost all elements of the Tromsø study that are used in this study are self-reported, except for BMI, which was measured objectively at the time of each survey. However, education in the latest waves of the Tromsø Study has been recently validated by Vo and colleagues [57]. In addition to the potential bias introduced by self-reported information, the variables of physical activity and alcohol consumption were coded to align with current health guidelines. This process, which involved quantifying the responses to enable translation into “units per week” of alcohol consumption and “minutes per week” of physical activity has yet to be validated, and therefore can also contribute to measurement bias.

Moreover, our physical activity indicator does not provide information on intensity as recommended in current health guidelines [30, 32, 58]. Similarly, smoking behavior was limited to a single question inquiring about respondents’ daily smoking habits. Although this approach allows for differentiation between daily and non-daily smokers, it does not account for volume of consumption or frequency of smoking beyond daily occurrences. Nonetheless, current health guidelines do not establish a safe threshold for smoking [30].

Furthermore, almost 3% of the respondents reported never having smoked daily in the follow-up survey, while they had previously reported smoking daily in the baseline survey. The respondents in this category were not removed from the analysis, as they may reflect another group comprised of individuals who smoked daily on an occasional basis and did not perceive themselves as daily smokers, such as those who smoked only during social events [59]. Moreover, diet was excluded since dietary intake assessment through health surveys has major limitations [60].

Furthermore, despite the notable strengths of our study design, including its longitudinal design with a balanced panel and the establishment of educational attainment prior to the baseline survey, it is crucial to recognize that there may exist additional factors that could influence our findings. While education as a time-invariant variable enables the examination of trends in BMI and the health behaviors without the need to control for fluctuations in our measure of socioeconomic position, we have not fully accounted for other potentially influential factors. Specifically, factors such as income disparities [61] and variations in individuals’ health status [62] have been demonstrated to exert an impact on health behavior factors. Nonetheless, income disparities in Norway are relatively minimal compared to other countries, which may mitigate the impact of salary on individuals’ adherence to health recommendations [63]. In addition, it is important to also consider the reciprocal relationship between health behavior and income. In other words, while evidence highlights how income may shape health behavior factors, there is also evidence suggesting that health behavior factors can lead to income increases [64, 65]. Therefore, not only the influence of additional unmeasured variables must be considered, but also the direction of these relationships.

In conclusion, these findings highlight the extent and consistency of educational inequalities in the adherence to BMI categories and to multiple health behaviors related to health recommendations. This uneven distribution of both healthy changes and healthy categories that were maintained over time may drive the exacerbation of social inequalities in health and life expectancy. Our study also helped to shed light on the behaviors and BMI categories that are less prone to change among low educated individuals and can therefore be targeted by health interventions.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Characteristics of participants in Tromsø 6 and Tromsø 7 and the cohort sample.

a Percentage of participants in Tromsø 6 that also participated in Tromsø 7. b Percentage of participants in Tromsø 7 that also participated in Tromsø 6. High alcohol consumption: more than 14 units per week for men and 7 units per week for women. Low physical activity: Less than 150 minutes per week. Obesity: body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or more.

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful to Professor Michael Greenacre for providing expert opinion on the MCA.

Data Availability

It is not possible to share our data due to the potential of reverse identification of de-identified sensitive participant information. The data can however be made available upon request to the Tromsø Study once applying for data access. Contact information for the Tromsø study can be found in the following link: https://uit.no/research/tromsostudy/project?pid=709148. The applications are handled by the Tromsø Study Data and Publication Committee. The authors of this study are not made responsible for ensuring access to data from the Tromsø Study.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.The Lancet Public Health. Achieving health equity in the European region. The Lancet Public Health. 2019; 4(10): e482. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. Healthy, prosperous lives for all: the European Health Equity Status Report: Executive summary. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mackenbach JP, Valverde JR, Artnik B, Bopp M, Brønnum-Hansen H, Deboosere P, et al. Trends in health inequalities in 27 European countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2018. Jun 19;115(25):6440–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1800028115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Diderichsen F, Andersen I, Manuel C, Working Group of the Danish Review on Social Determinants of Health, Andersen AM, Bach E, et al. Health Inequality-determinants and policies. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2012. Nov; 40(8_suppl): 12–05. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJL. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. The Lancet. 2006;367(9524):1747–57. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68770-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Petrovic D, de Mestral C, Bochud M, Bartley M, Kivimaki M, Vineis P, et al. The contribution of health behaviors to socioeconomic inequalities in health: A systematic review. Preventive medicine. 2018;113:15–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.World Health Organization. A healthy lifestyle. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Available from: https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/a-healthy-lifestyle—who-recommendations
  • 8.Loef M, Walach H. The combined effects of healthy lifestyle behaviors on all cause mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Preventive medicine. 2012;55(3):163–70. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.06.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mackenbach JP, Valverde JR, Bopp M, Brønnum-Hansen H, Deboosere P, Kalediene R, et al. Determinants of inequalities in life expectancy: an international comparative study of eight risk factors. The Lancet Public Health. 2019;4(10):e529–e37. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30147-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mackenbach JP, Kulhánová I, Artnik B, Bopp M, Borrell C, Clemens T, et al. Changes in mortality inequalities over two decades: register based study of European countries. BMJ. 2016;353:i1732. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i1732 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Social inequalities in health. NIPH; 2016. Available from: https://www.fhi.no/en/op/hin/population/social-inequalities/#socioeconomic-differences-in-lifestyle [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dahl E, Bergsli H, van der Wel KA. Sosial ulikhet i helse: en norsk kunnskapsoversikt. Høgskolen i Oslo og Akershus; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ernstsen L, Strand BH, Nilsen SM, Espnes GA, Krokstad S. Trends in absolute and relative educational inequalities in four modifiable ischaemic heart disease risk factors: repeated cross-sectional surveys from the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT) 1984–2008. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Øvrum A, Rickertsen K. Inequality in health versus inequality in lifestyle choices. Nordic Journal of Health Economics. 2015;3(1):18–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pape H, Norström T, Rossow I. Adolescent drinking—a touch of social class? Addiction. 2017;112(5):792–800. doi: 10.1111/add.13721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Heradstveit O, Haugland S, Hysing M, Stormark KM, Sivertsen B, Bøe T. Physical inactivity, non-participation in sports and socioeconomic status: a large population-based study among Norwegian adolescents. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1010. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09141-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tjora T, Skogen JC, Sivertsen B. Increasing similarities between young adults’ smoking and snus use in Norway: a study of the trends and stages of smoking and snus epidemic from 2010 to 2018. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1511. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09604-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Skårdal M, Western IM, Ask AMS, Overby NC. Socioeconomic differences in selected dietary habits among Norwegian 13–14 year-olds: a cross-sectional study. Food Nutr Res. 2014;58: doi: 10.3402/fnr.v58.23590 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fleary SA, Nigg CR. Trends in Health Behavior Patterns Among U.S. Adults, 2003–2015. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2018;53(1):1–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jones I, Papacosta O, Whincup P, Wannamethee S, Morris R. Class and lifestyle ’lock-in’ among middle-aged and older men: A Multiple Correspondence Analysis of the British Regional Heart Study. Sociology of health & illness. 2011;33:399–419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Finger JD, Busch MA, Heidemann C, Lange C, Mensink GBM, Schienkiewitz A. Time trends in healthy lifestyle among adults in Germany: Results from three national health interview and examination surveys between 1990 and 2011. PLOS ONE. 2019;14(9):e0222218. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Krokstad S, Ding D, Grunseit AC, Sund ER, Holmen TL, Rangul V, et al. Multiple lifestyle behaviours and mortality, findings from a large population-based Norwegian cohort study - The HUNT Study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Andersen MB, Bjørkman AD, Pedersen M, Ekholm O, Molsted S. Social inequality in lifestyle, motivation to change lifestyle and received health advice in individuals with diabetes: A nationwide study. Scandinavian Journal of Public health. 2020;48(8):847–54. doi: 10.1177/1403494819885727 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Lantz PM, House JS, Lepkowski JM, Williams DR, Mero RP, Chen J. Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adults. JAMA. 1998;279(21):1703–8. doi: 10.1001/jama.279.21.1703 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mudd AL, van Lenthe FJ, Verra SE, Bal M, Kamphuis CBM. Socioeconomic inequalities in health behaviors: exploring mediation pathways through material conditions and time orientation. International Journal for Equity in Health. 2021;20(1):184. doi: 10.1186/s12939-021-01522-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Brunello G, Fort M, Schneeweis N, Winter-Ebmer R. The causal effect of education on health: what is the role of health behaviors? Health Economics. 2016; 25(3): 314–36. doi: 10.1002/hec.3141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Jacobsen BK, Eggen AE, Mathiesen EB, Wilsgaard T, Njølstad I. Cohort profile: The Tromsø Study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2012;41(4):961–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.World Health Organization. Healthy living: What is a healthy lifestyle? Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.International Alliance for Responsible Drinking IARD. Drinking guidelines: General population 2019. Available from: http://www.iard.org/resources/drinking-guidelines-general-population. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nordic Nutrition Recommendations. Integrating nutrition and physical activity. 5th ed. Nordic Council of Ministers, 2014. Available from: https://www.norden.org/en/publication/nordic-nutrition-recommendations-2012 [Google Scholar]
  • 31.European Commission. Health promotion and disease prevention knowledge gateway. Physical activity recommendations for adults. Available from: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/health-promotion-knowledge-gateway/physical-activity-sedentary-behaviour-table-2b_en.
  • 32.Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, Borodulin K, Buman MP, Cardon G, et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(24):1451–62. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-102955 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 2000;894:i-xii, 1–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Greenacre MJ. Theory and Applications of Correspondence Analysis: Academic Press; 1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Greenacre M. Correspondence analysis of raw data. Ecology. 2010;91(4):958–63. doi: 10.1890/09-0239.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Greenacre M. Biplots in Practice. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Khangar N, Kamalja KK. Multiple Correspondence Analysis and its applications. Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis. 2017;10:432–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sączewska-Piotrowska A. Economic factors influencing the health behavior changes during COVID-19 pandemic: multiple correspondence analysis results. Procedia Computer Science. 2021;192:2522–30. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.09.021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Duygu A, Gün S, Taner K. Multiple Correspondence Analysis Technique Used in Analyzing the Categorical Data in Social Sciences. Journal of Applied Sciences. 2007;7. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Costa PS, Santos NC, Cunha P, Cotter J, Sousa N. The Use of Multiple Correspondence Analysis to Explore Associations between Categories of Qualitative Variables in Healthy Ageing. Journal of aging research. 2013;2013:302163. doi: 10.1155/2013/302163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Nordahl H. Social inequality in chronic disease outcomes. Danish Medical Journal. 2014;61(11):B4943. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Jones L, Bates G, McCoy E, Bellis MA. Relationship between alcohol-attributable disease and socioeconomic status, and the role of alcohol consumption in this relationship: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:400. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1720-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ross CE, Wu C-l. The Links Between Education and Health. American Sociological Review. 1995;60(5):719–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Nettle D. Why Are There Social Gradients in Preventative Health Behavior? A Perspective from Behavioral Ecology. PLOS ONE. 2010;5(10):e13371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Diderichsen F, Hallqvist J, Whitehead M. Differential vulnerability and susceptibility: how to make use of recent development in our understanding of mediation and interaction to tackle health inequalities. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2019;48(1):268–74. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy167 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Cutler DM, Lleras-Muney A. Understanding differences in health behaviors by education. Journal of Health Economics. 2010; 29(1): 1–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2009.10.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Diderichsen F, Evans T, Whitehead M. The social basis of disparities in health. Challenging inequities in health: From ethics to action. 2001. May 31;1:12–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mäkelä P, Paljärvi T. Do consequences of a given pattern of drinking vary by socioeconomic status? A mortality and hospitalisation follow-up for alcohol-related causes of the Finnish Drinking Habits Surveys. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2008;62(8):728–33. doi: 10.1136/jech.2007.065672 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Vedøy TF, Lund KE. Beliefs about harms of cigarette smoking among Norwegian adults born from 1899 to 1969. Do variations across education, smoking status and sex mirror the decline in smoking? PLOS ONE. 2022;17(8):e0271647 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0271647 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Krokstad S, Ernstsen L, Sund ER, Bjørngaard JH, Langhammer A, Midthjell K, et al. Social and spatial patterns of obesity diffusion over three decades in a Norwegian county population: the HUNT Study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):973. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations: Simon and Schuster; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Calogiuri G, Patil GG, Aamodt G. Is green exercise for all? A descriptive study of green exercise habits and promoting factors in adult Norwegians. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2016;13(11):1165. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13111165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Strand BH, Steiro A. Alcohol consumption, income and education in Norway, 1993–2000. Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening: tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke. 2003. Oct 1;123(20):2849–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Eggen AE, Mathiesen EB, Wilsgaard T, Jacobsen BK, Njølstad I. The sixth survey of the Tromsø Study (Tromsø 6) in 2007–08: Collaborative research in the interface between clinical medicine and epidemiology: Study objectives, design, data collection procedures, and attendance in a multipurpose population-based health survey. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2013; 41(1): 65–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Lorant V, Demarest S, Miermans PJ, Van Oyen H. Survey error in measuring socio-economic risk factors of health status: a comparison of a survey and a census. International Journey of Epidemiology. 2007; 36(6):1292–9. doi: 10.1093/ije/dym191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Infante-Rivard C, Cusson A. Reflection on modern methods: selection bias—a review of recent developments. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2018;47(5):1714–22. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyy138 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Vo CQ, Samuelsen PJ, Sommerseth HL, Wisløff T, Wilsgaard T, Eggen AE. Validity of self-reported educational level in the Tromsø Study. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2022. May 20:14034948221088004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Commission European. EU Physical Activity Guidelines. Recommendend policy actions in support of health-enhancing physical activity,. 2008:38. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Shiffman S, Li X, Dunbar MS, Ferguson SG, Tindle HA, Scholl SM. Social smoking among intermittent smokers. Drug and alcohol dependence. 2015. Sep 1;154:184–91. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.06.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ishihara J. Challenges in Dietary Exposure Assessment in Epidemiology: Research Trends. Journal of Nutritional Science and Vitaminology. 2015;61(Supplement):S33–S5. doi: 10.3177/jnsv.61.S33 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Campbell DJ, Ronksley PE, Manns BJ, Tonelli M, Sanmartin C, Weaver RG, et al. The association of income with health behavior change and disease monitoring among patients with chronic disease. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e94007. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Riediger ND, Bombak AE, Mudryj AN. Health-related behaviours and their relationship with self-rated health among Canadian adults. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):960. doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7249-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kinge JM, Modalsli JH, Øverland S, Gjessing HK, Tollånes MC, Knudsen AK, et al. Association of Household Income With Life Expectancy and Cause-Specific Mortality in Norway, 2005–2015. Jama. 2019;321(19):1916–25. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.4329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.López-Bueno R, Smith L, Andersen LL, López-Sánchez GF, Casajús JA. Association between physical activity and sickness absenteeism in university workers. Occup Med (Lond). 2020;70(1):24–30. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqz158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Xiao X, Yu Y, He Q, Xu D, Qi Y, Ma L, et al. Does Regular Physical Activity Improve Personal Income? Empirical Evidence from China. Nutrients. 2022;14(17):3522. doi: 10.3390/nu14173522 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Diego Augusto Santos Silva

12 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-22752Patterns of health behavior and socioeconomic status: a longitudinal multiple correspondence analysis of a middle-aged general population, 2007-2016PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ibarra-Sanchez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 26 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Diego Augusto Santos Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. 

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall comments

The entire manuscript needs proofreading—I noticed several spelling/grammar mistakes, and the writing could be improved. Certain sections need to be expanded (e.g. interpretation of results, exploration of mechanisms), while some could be shortened (e.g. how MCA works).

The figures/tables need to be revised, they are poorly organized, which makes them hard to follow For example, why was Table 1 stratified by gender, when gender was not discussed at all in the manuscript? And why was Table 2 never referenced? Is column percentage really the best way to present data?

It is unclear (at least based on the manuscript) if the changes in behaviors are measured at individual level or group level. And additional analyses might

Introduction

“Socioeconomic differences in health persist and are growing markedly, even in countries with good social circumstances (1-3).”

Please explain what you meant by social circumstances

“Unhealthy behaviors, such as smoking, harmful alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, poor diet and high BMI are risk factors for chronic diseases (7, 8)”

High BMI is not a behavior; and it is more like an intermediate or measure of outcome in your case

“Monitoring social inequalities in the burden of chronic diseases and its determinants can facilitate the development of policies to improve health equality”

Please proofread the entire manuscript

Materials and methods

“The Tromsø Study is a prospective cohort of the residents of the municipality of Tromsø”

Just to confirm, these are the same people followed over time? I think you mentioned it later but you need to clarify it here too. Is it an open cohort? What are the retention rate? Etc.

“Level of education was used as indicator of socioeconomic status due to previous research showing education as one of the main indicators of socioeconomic status in the Nordic countries (35)”

I would like to see more justification of using only education as indicator, since socioeconomic status is fairly complex and could be measured in many ways. You might want to compare several measures since it is the key exposure/factor in your study

Results

“Only 6.3% of the respondents reported a change in alcohol consumption behavior, followed by 13.1% in daily smoking.”

Please only describe things you meant to interpret—here you combined both health and unhealthy changes—which might be pointless to bring up

“In dimension 1, BMI and BMI change are indicated to have the largest discriminatory power, with “remain normal weight” on one side, and three different unhealthy BMI categories on the right side (“remain obese”, “overweight to obese” and “normal to overweight”).”

There was a very long section on MCA in the methods section, yet here there was no explanation on what the dimensions mean. Need to expand this section for those who aren’t familiar with MCA.

“Level of education was included as a supplementary variable. Supplementary points define additional profiles that are not used to establish the solution space but are projected onto the space afterwards.”

Does that mean this study is purely descriptive? You might want to consider additional analyses like regression where you could account for confounding. Also, since there’s no measure of association, you need to be cautious when discussing biases in later section.

Discussion

“A longer exposure time could further explain the mechanism of differential susceptibility (47)”

The mechanism was barely explored in the manuscript

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting manuscript with a novel approach to measuring the mediators of health inequalities through the life course.

The authors’ rationale is clear, as are the results here-presented. However, I believe the manuscript has some limitations that need to be revised and some gaps that need to be filled in.

Introduction:

1) When mentioning health differences, in line 56, please specify which differences (all-cause mortality) as the size of inequalities could vary according to the health indicator. Also, mention how these differences are measured: rate ratios vs rate differences.

2) In line 63 the authors state that little is known regarding inequalities in multiple health behaviours. The authors must consult Lakshman R, et al. article (Lakshman R, et al. Association between area-level socioeconomic deprivation and a cluster of behavioural risk factors: cross-sectional, population-based study. Journal of Public Health. 2010 Sep 29;33(2):234-45)

3) In lines 69 to 72 the authors seem to oversimplify (and incorrectly report) the reference:

[2003] “When compared to the Healthy group, individuals in the Apathetic group were younger (odds ratio [OR] = 0.92), male (OR = 2.89), lower income (OR = 0.87), less educated (OR = 0.74), more likely to be Black (OR = 1.30), and less likely to be Other (OR = 0.79) versus White. The Binge-drinking group was younger (OR = 0.72), male (OR = 7.38), lower income (OR = 0.85), less educated (OR = 0.57), and less likely to be Hispanic (OR = 0.76) versus White than the Healthy group.

[2015] “Participants in the Apathetic group were more likely to be younger (OR = 0.87), male (OR = 1.41), lower income (OR = 0.63), less educated (OR = 0.45), Black versus White (OR = 1.86), and White versus Hispanic (OR = 0.67) than the Physically Active group. Participants in the Binge-drinking group were younger (OR = 0.73), male (OR = 3.28), lower education (OR = 0.53), lower income (OR = 0.79), Black versus White (OR = 1.31), White versus Hispanic (OR = 0.70), and Other (OR = 0.66) when compared to the Physically Active group.”

As such these findings should be reported differently: (1) by behaviour group (healthy/physically active vs apathetic vs binge drinking, and mentioning what behaviours characterize these groups), and (2) reporting the results from the binge drinking group.

Further, the authors must confront these findings from the US to those from other authors and studies, as from Cutler et al. (Cutler DM, Lleras-Muney A. Understanding differences in health behaviors by education. Journal of health economics. 2010;29(1):1-28)

4) Considering lines 84-85 (“observations from longitudinal studies have suggested that a large percentage of individuals follow a pattern of long-term adherence to the same health behaviors”) the authors must clearly state (1) what they expect this study to add to the literature and (2) their research hypothesis.

Methods:

1) The use of BMI as a proxy for healthy eating seems inappropriate, as BMI importantly depends not only on the diet but also on the intensity and frequency of physical activity, among others. It seems more adequate to remove this variable from the study or assume it as BMI (and not a proxy).

2) It is unclear if the authors grouped the categories of the variables of interest or if they used the original categorization. The authors must explain the rationale behind the decision of aggregation/no aggregation of these categories (for example, is low BMI considered normal weight?).

3) The authors must state if (and how) sex and age were used in the multiple correspondence analysis.

Results:

1) The authors must clarify what means, for the study aim, (1) the inertia of the two dimensions, (2) BMI’s “largest discriminatory power”, (3) the contributions of physical activity and alcohol consumption to the spread of dimension 1, (4) the considerable discriminatory power of BMI and smoking on dimension 2.

2) A legend is needed in Figure 1.

Discussion:

1) Besides the ‘differential susceptibility’ other factors and pathways may explain (1) the higher risk of low-educated individuals to have unhealthy behaviours and (2) their difficulty in changing them, besides the (3) overall population to change behaviours. Material and immaterial resources (see Mackenbah et al. The persistence of health inequalities in modern welfare states: The explanation of a paradox. SSM 2012), psychosocial stress and available coping mechanisms, environmental opportunities, the capacity of the health system to support people and their knowledge on how to navigate it, social norms and social control, can be some of the hypotheses that should be enunciated in this section.

2) The reader probably will know little about the Norwegian context: it would be important that the authors contextualize some of the reasons behind the persistence of unhealthy behaviours in the life course, especially among the least educated.

3) The authors mention a selection bias regarding education - couldn’t there be a bias regarding behaviours, ie., couldn’t people with a higher number of unhealthy behaviours refrain from participating in subsequent waves?

4) How may these selection biases impact this study's results?

5) As stated above, BMI should not be used as an indicator of healthy eating. It strongly depends on physical activity (besides other factors).

Reviewer #3: This is a two wave survey (longitudinal) on 4-5 health behaviors and one SES indicator being educational attainment. While past predicts future, healthy behaviors tend to covary, and they are associated with higher educational attainment. These are partially known, but that does not make me less interested in the results if:

1- The paper discusses that overlap between SES and various health behaviors suggest there might be a sub-additive effects of various health behaviors, because of overlapping mechanism. That means, the total effect is probably smaller than sum of the effects, because health behaviors tend to manifest in the same individual. This subadditive versus multiplicative/synergistic effect if of interest of the literature.

2- The paper needs to go beyond main effects that assume all effects are universal across subgroups. We did not see the distribution of immigrants and native individuals and ethnic groups. A large body of literature shown that the effects of educationn is maximum in native people and minimum in marginalized people such as immigrants because the system does not similarly value their education, and their education does not become income etc whoch is needed for healty diet and exercise. so, these diminished returns of education based on marginalization status should be tested. If all associations are universal (no interaction), then your country is a very non-discriminatory context, but if marginalized people with high education still engage in health risk behaviors, it is probably because they work in worse jobs and have lower income nad higher stress. These to be tested and discussed based on a very well-established litertaure on MDRs (diminished returns). Nothing should be assumed to be universal. One size does not fit all.

After these comments are addressed, I can review the paper again and suggest publication.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Patterns of health behavior and socioeconomic status - review.docx

PLoS One. 2023 Dec 1;18(12):e0295302. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295302.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Dec 2022

Reviewer #1: Overall comments

1. The entire manuscript needs proofreading—I noticed several spelling/grammar mistakes, and the writing could be improved. Certain sections need to be expanded (e.g. interpretation of results, exploration of mechanisms), while some could be shortened (e.g. how MCA works).

Thanks for this comment. We have now revised the language and proofread the manuscript. We have expanded our interpretation of results, mechanisms and shortened the section on how Multiple Correspondence Analysis works.

2. The figures/tables need to be revised, they are poorly organized, which makes them hard to follow For example, why was Table 1 stratified by gender, when gender was not discussed at all in the manuscript? And why was Table 2 never referenced? Is column percentage really the best way to present data?

Figures and tables have been revised according to the organization of the revised manuscript, assured they were referenced in the main body of the text. In addition, we have added an additional analysis that explore sex differences.

3. It is unclear (at least based on the manuscript) if the changes in behaviors are measured at individual level or group level. And additional analyses might

Thanks for making us aware of this! We have now elaborated on this in our methods section, lines [159-161] , making it clearer that changes are measured at the individual level.

4. Introduction

“Socioeconomic differences in health persist and are growing markedly, even in countries with good social circumstances (1-3).”

Please explain what you meant by social circumstances.

We have reworded this sentence to explain what we meant by social circumstances. See line no. [45-46].

5. “Unhealthy behaviors, such as smoking, harmful alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, poor diet and high BMI are risk factors for chronic diseases (7, 8)”

High BMI is not a behavior; and it is more like an intermediate or measure of outcome in your case

Thanks for pointing this out. We have changed this sentence to make this distinction clearer throughout the manuscript.

6. “Monitoring social inequalities in the burden of chronic diseases and its determinants can facilitate the development of policies to improve health equality”

Please proofread the entire manuscript.

Thanks for this comment. We have now revised the language and proofread the manuscript.

7. Materials and methods

“The Tromsø Study is a prospective cohort of the residents of the municipality of Tromsø”

Just to confirm, these are the same people followed over time? I think you mentioned it later but you need to clarify it here too. Is it an open cohort? What are the retention rate? Etc.

We are very grateful for this comment. More detail about the Tromsø study has been added to clarify that we are following the same people over time, and the retention rate can be seen in the table of descriptive characteristics.

8.“Level of education was used as indicator of socioeconomic status due to previous research showing education as one of the main indicators of socioeconomic status in the Nordic countries (35)”

I would like to see more justification of using only education as indicator, since socioeconomic status is fairly complex and could be measured in many ways. You might want to compare several measures since it is the key exposure/factor in your study.

Good points! In terms of education as an indicator of SEP, we have now added information to justify it as indicator of socioeconomic status, lines [136-144]. For example, education is a stable measure that is maintained even if respondents change their employment status over time, which is ideal for the design of our study. An additional advantage is that the education variable in the lates waves of the Tromsø Study has been recently validated. Since the variable of income remains self-reported to this date, we could not add a suitable comparison between several measures of SEP.

9. Results

“Only 6.3% of the respondents reported a change in alcohol consumption behavior, followed by 13.1% in daily smoking.”

Please only describe things you meant to interpret—here you combined both health and unhealthy changes—which might be pointless to bring up

Good point! We have now distinguished between the behavior factors that underwent more change versus those that changed less. Interestingly, smoking and alcohol consumption were the questions in which a larger number of respondents in the cohort sample reported the same answer in 2007/08 and in 2015/16. In contrast, a larger number of respondents reported a different answer or fell into a different category with respect to BMI and physical activity at the follow-up. We consider this an important observation and therefore discuss this further on lines [176-184].

10. “In dimension 1, BMI and BMI change are indicated to have the largest discriminatory power, with “remain normal weight” on one side, and three different unhealthy BMI categories on the right side (“remain obese”, “overweight to obese” and “normal to overweight”).”

There was a very long section on MCA in the methods section, yet here there was no explanation on what the dimensions mean. Need to expand this section for those who aren’t familiar with MCA.

Thanks for making us aware of this. We have now reworded our results section by removing the overtechnical use of language used in the field of MCA and have now kept only the information most relevant to the main findings for our results’ interpretation.

11. “Level of education was included as a supplementary variable. Supplementary points define additional profiles that are not used to establish the solution space but are projected onto the space afterwards.”

Does that mean this study is purely descriptive? You might want to consider additional analyses like regression where you could account for confounding. Also, since there’s no measure of association, you need to be cautious when discussing biases in later section.

Thank you for pointing out this about confounding! We could account now for some of the confounding in the complex relationship between education and health behavior by stratifying the analysis by age and gender. Although we don’t perform any specific hypothesis testing in the manuscript, our study is not deemed as purely descriptive, see line [152-157]. MCA is a visualization of the measure of associations between a set of variables. We will look further into other statistical ways of analyzing this relationship in future work, as also noted in the discussion.

12. Discussion

“A longer exposure time could further explain the mechanism of differential susceptibility (47)”

The mechanism was barely explored in the manuscript.

We have expanded our discussion section with regard to this concept.

Reviewer #2:

13.This is an interesting manuscript with a novel approach to measuring the mediators of health inequalities through the life course.

The authors’ rationale is clear, as are the results here-presented. However, I believe the manuscript has some limitations that need to be revised and some gaps that need to be filled in.

Introduction:

When mentioning health differences, in line 56, please specify which differences (all-cause mortality) as the size of inequalities could vary according to the health indicator. Also, mention how these differences are measured: rate ratios vs rate differences.

Thanks for pointing this out. We have now included more information about the European comparison by Mackenback and colleagues.

14. In line 63 the authors state that little is known regarding inequalities in multiple health behaviours. The authors must consult Lakshman R, et al. article (Lakshman R, et al. Association between area-level socioeconomic deprivation and a cluster of behavioural risk factors: cross-sectional, population-based study. Journal of Public Health. 2010 Sep 29;33(2):234-45)

Thanks for making us aware of this important work by Lakshman and colleagues! We agree that little is not the appropriate term, therefore in line 63 we originally wrote less is known. There is less research with longitudinal design about socioeconomic inequalities in multiple health behaviors compared to the number of cross-sectional studies. We could not fit this work by Lakshman and colleagues because we wanted to focus on highlighting the studies with longitudinal or repeated cross-sectional design and/or from Scandinavian populations.

15. In lines 69 to 72 the authors seem to oversimplify (and incorrectly report) the reference:

[2003] “When compared to the Healthy group, individuals in the Apathetic group were younger (odds ratio [OR] = 0.92), male (OR = 2.89), lower income (OR = 0.87), less educated (OR = 0.74), more likely to be Black (OR = 1.30), and less likely to be Other (OR = 0.79) versus White. The Binge-drinking group was younger (OR = 0.72), male (OR = 7.38), lower income (OR = 0.85), less educated (OR = 0.57), and less likely to be Hispanic (OR = 0.76) versus White than the Healthy group.

[2015] “Participants in the Apathetic group were more likely to be younger (OR = 0.87), male (OR = 1.41), lower income (OR = 0.63), less educated (OR = 0.45), Black versus White (OR = 1.86), and White versus Hispanic (OR = 0.67) than the Physically Active group. Participants in the Binge-drinking group were younger (OR = 0.73), male (OR = 3.28), lower education (OR = 0.53), lower income (OR = 0.79), Black versus White (OR = 1.31), White versus Hispanic (OR = 0.70), and Other (OR = 0.66) when compared to the Physically Active group.”

Thank you for expanding this for us. We have now expanded the findings from this research article and corrected our reporting of these results.

16. Further, the authors must confront these findings from the US to those from other authors and studies, as from Cutler et al. (Cutler DM, Lleras-Muney A. Understanding differences in health behaviors by education. Journal of health economics. 2010;29(1):1-28)

Thanks for making us aware of this interesting study by Cutler and Lleras-Muney. We have now discussed our findings related to this and other work.

17. Considering lines 84-85 (“observations from longitudinal studies have suggested that a large percentage of individuals follow a pattern of long-term adherence to the same health behaviors”) the authors must clearly state (1) what they expect this study to add to the literature and (2) their research hypothesis.

We have now clearly stated what we expect our study will add to the current literature in line no. [63-67] and [86-92].

18. Methods:

The use of BMI as a proxy for healthy eating seems inappropriate, as BMI importantly depends not only on the diet but also on the intensity and frequency of physical activity, among others. It seems more adequate to remove this variable from the study or assume it as BMI (and not a proxy).

Thanks for this insight! We have now made sure BMI is not assumed as a proxy for healthy eating and now is assumed it as BMI.

19. It is unclear if the authors grouped the categories of the variables of interest or if they used the original categorization. The authors must explain the rationale behind the decision of aggregation/no aggregation of these categories (for example, is low BMI considered normal weight?).

Thanks for pointing out that there was some justification missing in our methods section. We have now added information about the way categories were grouped in the methods section.

20. The authors must state if (and how) sex and age were used in the multiple correspondence analysis.

We have now stated how age and sex were used in the analyses.

21. Results:

1) The authors must clarify what means, for the study aim, (1) the inertia of the two dimensions, (2) BMI’s “largest discriminatory power”, (3) the contributions of physical activity and alcohol consumption to the spread of dimension 1, (4) the considerable discriminatory power of BMI and smoking on dimension 2.

We have now reworded our results section to remove the overtechnical use of language and keeping only the information most relevant to the main findings for our results’ interpretation.

22. A legend is needed in Figure 1.

We have revised our figures including their legends.

23. Discussion:

1) Besides the ‘differential susceptibility’ other factors and pathways may explain (1) the higher risk of low-educated individuals to have unhealthy behaviours and (2) their difficulty in changing them, besides the (3) overall population to change behaviours. Material and immaterial resources (see Mackenbah et al. The persistence of health inequalities in modern welfare states: The explanation of a paradox. SSM 2012), psychosocial stress and available coping mechanisms, environmental opportunities, the capacity of the health system to support people and their knowledge on how to navigate it, social norms and social control, can be some of the hypotheses that should be enunciated in this section.

Thanks for pointing us in the direction of this important work. We have now mentioned the literature behind the diverse pathways in our discussion section.

24. The reader probably will know little about the Norwegian context: it would be important that the authors contextualize some of the reasons behind the persistence of unhealthy behaviors in the life course, especially among the least educated.

Thanks for pointing us in the direction of this important work. Literature about the mechanisms behind the relationship between education and health behavior in the Norwegian context has been added to our discussion.

25. The authors mention a selection bias regarding education - couldn’t there be a bias regarding behaviours, ie., couldn’t people with a higher number of unhealthy behaviours refrain from participating in subsequent waves?

Excellent point, we have mentioned this on lines [312-317].

26. How may these selection biases impact this study's results?

We have now included more about the potential impact of the selection bias.

27. As stated above, BMI should not be used as an indicator of healthy eating. It strongly depends on physical activity (besides other factors).

Thanks for this insight! We have now made sure BMI is not assumed as a proxy for healthy eating and now is assumed it as BMI.

Reviewer #3:

28. This is a two wave survey (longitudinal) on 4-5 health behaviors and one SES indicator being educational attainment. While past predicts future, healthy behaviors tend to covary, and they are associated with higher educational attainment. These are partially known, but that does not make me less interested in the results if:

1- The paper discusses that overlap between SES and various health behaviors suggest there might be a sub-additive effects of various health behaviors, because of overlapping mechanism. That means, the total effect is probably smaller than sum of the effects, because health behaviors tend to manifest in the same individual. This subadditive versus multiplicative/synergistic effect if of interest of the literature.

Thanks for this important insight! We have now welcomed the literature about this point in our discussion section.

29. 2- The paper needs to go beyond main effects that assume all effects are universal across subgroups. We did not see the distribution of immigrants and native individuals and ethnic groups. A large body of literature shown that the effects of education is maximum in native people and minimum in marginalized people such as immigrants because the system does not similarly value their education, and their education does not become income etc whoch is needed for healty diet and exercise. so, these diminished returns of education based on marginalization status should be tested. If all associations are universal (no interaction), then your country is a very non-discriminatory context, but if marginalized people with high education still engage in health risk behaviors, it is probably because they work in worse jobs and have lower income nad higher stress. These to be tested and discussed based on a very well-established litertaure on MDRs (diminished returns). Nothing should be assumed to be universal. One size does not fit all.

After these comments are addressed, I can review the paper again and suggest publication.

We completely agree that this is a very important issue to take into account. We have now mentioned this aspect in the discussion section .

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Diego Augusto Santos Silva

4 May 2023

PONE-D-22-22752R1Health behavior patterns and socioeconomic status: a longitudinal multiple correspondence analysis of a middle-aged general population, 2007-2016PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ibarra-Sanchez,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 18 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Diego Augusto Santos Silva, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments :

Based on the reviewer's comment, authors should note the following points in the article:

Strengths

• This was an interesting study that longitudinally assessed multiple health behaviors in the same study sample over time that included both men and women.

• The longitudinal design, large sample size, and decision to assess multiple health behaviours were strengths.

• MCA analysis was novel.

Weaknesses

• Introduction page 12, line 48: high BMI is not a behaviour as the others are, but is a clinical risk factor that is the result of poor diet and low physical activity - if you mention BMI here you should also mention high blood pressure, cholesterol etc. Same for line 56. If the focus of the paper is to highlight socioeconomic differences in health behaviours, BMI should not be included in this list.

• Related to above, the authors continue to refer to BMI as a poor health behaviour, which it is not. It is the result of poor health behaviours (poor diet and low levels of physical activity) – and in some cases, BMI does not reflect either of these (e.g., in athletes with high muscle mass relative to height). Further, BMI (weight) may increase over time not due to poor health behaviours, but medication side effects and hormonal changes associated with pregnancy or menopause (in women). This is another reason why it is conceptually and methodologically inappropriate to define BMI as a health behaviour, so any reference to BMI being a health behaviour should be deleted and/or edited throughout the manuscript. The previous reviewers had also made this comment but this has not been addressed by the authors.

• The main outcome measures (health behaviours) were not very sensitive. For example, smoking was assessed as current, past or never – but did not include a measure of volume or duration, which is critical for estimating impacts on health. Pack years would have been a more sensitive measure. Also, participants were defined as physically active only if they reached the 150min/week threshold, but this obscures the ability to observe a dose-response relationship between education and physical activity. Further, the authors calculated physical activity minutes based on multiplying reported frequency and duration, but they estimated duration based on categorical data – this is not appropriate unless there is validation information for this?

• The decision to measure SES by education alone was confusing. The authors reasoned that this would be a good measure because it is stable, yet their study was longitudinal, so if their predictor is stable, what is the benefit of a longitudinal analyses, as this would make it less likely to observe changes in health behaviours as a result of changes in SES over time (because education does not change like occupation and income, which could affect the ability to ‘afford’ engaging in good health behaviours). The authors provided no hypotheses - is this what they expected to observe? This is indeed what they found, but this seems entirely predictable based on previous work and the nature/stability of this variable. What would have been more interesting is to examine interactions between education (stable variable) and occupation or income (unstable variable) which might help tease apart how these variables contribute to health behaviours. For example, education might be important for healthy eating, except when one loses their job and income – where buying healthy foods might be more difficult. Similarly, education might be associated with higher alcohol consumption (because drinking can be expensive and it is often seen as status symbol)- yet this association might decrease in those who lose their job or income.

• Table 1 was confusing and hard to interpret because of the high number of independent groups that were presented across each health behaviour (and BMI is not a health behaviour). It would be more helpful and informative to classify each behaviour as getting better, worse or staying the same over time as a function of sex.

• I was not able to read the figures because the resolution was not high enough. The text summarizing the results of the MCA analysis was also confusing – possibly because of the multiple analyses and largely descriptive nature of the findings.

• The discussion did not explain any of the mechanisms behind the observed associations, which really diminishes the contribution of the manuscript. The text on page 21, line 281 to 305, seems to go in circles and say no more than education is tied to health behaviours and this is generally maintained over time. How this is association may be explained by interactions with other risk factors was not discussed.

• As the authors acknowledged, there is a high risk of selection bias and self-report bias, which undermines confidence in the data.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: I Don't Know

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed my comments--justifications were provided for each step of the analysis, and tables/writing have been revised. As a result, the manuscript improved noticeably.

Reviewer #4: Summary

This is a resubmission of an article assessing patterns of multiple health behaviour factor and their association with SES (defined as education level) in two waves of a longitudinal cohort (2007-08 and 2015-16) of 8906 adults living in Northern Norway. Main findings were that healthier behaviour patterns were observed in those with more education. Also, positive changes in health behaviours and maintenance of good health behaviours was associated with higher education levels. The authors concluded that policy makers should examine different opportunities for engaging in good health behaviours as a function of SES, which should be addressed to tackle health inequalities.

I did not review the original submission, but carefully reviewed the responses to reviews and edits made the manuscript. It would seem that some issues have been clarified or addressed, but other were either not addressed or not addressed appropriately based on my interpretation of the reviews. I have detailed my assessment the manuscripts main strengths and weaknesses, and where further edits and clarifications are needed. Overall, based on my reading of the manuscript, I am not sure it makes a strong or unique enough contribution to the extant literature to warrant publication in PLOS One. I recognized that the authors have done an extensive response to review and made several edits to the manuscript, but the results are largely descriptive and there remain important conceptual and methodological issues with the paper. I have summarized the paper’s major strengths and weaknesses below.

Strengths

• This was an interesting study that longitudinally assessed multiple health behaviors in the same study sample over time that included both men and women.

• The longitudinal design, large sample size, and decision to assess multiple health behaviours were strengths.

• MCA analysis was novel.

Weaknesses

• Introduction page 12, line 48: high BMI is not a behaviour as the others are, but is a clinical risk factor that is the result of poor diet and low physical activity - if you mention BMI here you should also mention high blood pressure, cholesterol etc. Same for line 56. If the focus of the paper is to highlight socioeconomic differences in health behaviours, BMI should not be included in this list.

• Related to above, the authors continue to refer to BMI as a poor health behaviour, which it is not. It is the result of poor health behaviours (poor diet and low levels of physical activity) – and in some cases, BMI does not reflect either of these (e.g., in athletes with high muscle mass relative to height). Further, BMI (weight) may increase over time not due to poor health behaviours, but medication side effects and hormonal changes associated with pregnancy or menopause (in women). This is another reason why it is conceptually and methodologically inappropriate to define BMI as a health behaviour, so any reference to BMI being a health behaviour should be deleted and/or edited throughout the manuscript. The previous reviewers had also made this comment but this has not been addressed by the authors.

• The main outcome measures (health behaviours) were not very sensitive. For example, smoking was assessed as current, past or never – but did not include a measure of volume or duration, which is critical for estimating impacts on health. Pack years would have been a more sensitive measure. Also, participants were defined as physically active only if they reached the 150min/week threshold, but this obscures the ability to observe a dose-response relationship between education and physical activity. Further, the authors calculated physical activity minutes based on multiplying reported frequency and duration, but they estimated duration based on categorical data – this is not appropriate unless there is validation information for this?

• The decision to measure SES by education alone was confusing. The authors reasoned that this would be a good measure because it is stable, yet their study was longitudinal, so if their predictor is stable, what is the benefit of a longitudinal analyses, as this would make it less likely to observe changes in health behaviours as a result of changes in SES over time (because education does not change like occupation and income, which could affect the ability to ‘afford’ engaging in good health behaviours). The authors provided no hypotheses - is this what they expected to observe? This is indeed what they found, but this seems entirely predictable based on previous work and the nature/stability of this variable. What would have been more interesting is to examine interactions between education (stable variable) and occupation or income (unstable variable) which might help tease apart how these variables contribute to health behaviours. For example, education might be important for healthy eating, except when one loses their job and income – where buying healthy foods might be more difficult. Similarly, education might be associated with higher alcohol consumption (because drinking can be expensive and it is often seen as status symbol)- yet this association might decrease in those who lose their job or income.

• Table 1 was confusing and hard to interpret because of the high number of independent groups that were presented across each health behaviour (and BMI is not a health behaviour). It would be more helpful and informative to classify each behaviour as getting better, worse or staying the same over time as a function of sex.

• I was not able to read the figures because the resolution was not high enough. The text summarizing the results of the MCA analysis was also confusing – possibly because of the multiple analyses and largely descriptive nature of the findings.

• The discussion did not explain any of the mechanisms behind the observed associations, which really diminishes the contribution of the manuscript. The text on page 21, line 281 to 305, seems to go in circles and say no more than education is tied to health behaviours and this is generally maintained over time. How this is association may be explained by interactions with other risk factors was not discussed.

• As the authors acknowledged, there is a high risk of selection bias and self-report bias, which undermines confidence in the data.

Reviewer #5: The authors seemed to have made reasonable efforts in addressing all of the reviewers' comments they have received in their previous iteration of submission.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Kim L. Lavoie

Reviewer #5: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Dec 1;18(12):e0295302. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295302.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


28 Jun 2023

Strengths

• This was an interesting study that longitudinally assessed multiple health behaviors in the same study sample over time that included both men and women.

• The longitudinal design, large sample size, and decision to assess multiple health behaviours were strengths.

• MCA analysis was novel.

Thank you for acknowledging the strengths of our research study.

Weaknesses

• Introduction page 12, line 48: high BMI is not a behaviour as the others are, but is a clinical risk factor that is the result of poor diet and low physical activity - if you mention BMI here you should also mention high blood pressure, cholesterol etc. Same for line 56. If the focus of the paper is to highlight socioeconomic differences in health behaviours, BMI should not be included in this list.

Thank you for your comment. As you point out, it is important that BMI is not referred as a behavior. We have now made the necessary changes throughout the paper to make it clearer that BMI is not referred as a behavior.

• Related to above, the authors continue to refer to BMI as a poor health behaviour, which it is not. It is the result of poor health behaviours (poor diet and low levels of physical activity) – and in some cases, BMI does not reflect either of these (e.g., in athletes with high muscle mass relative to height). Further, BMI (weight) may increase over time not due to poor health behaviours, but medication side effects and hormonal changes associated with pregnancy or menopause (in women). This is another reason why it is conceptually and methodologically inappropriate to define BMI as a health behaviour, so any reference to BMI being a health behaviour should be deleted and/or edited throughout the manuscript. The previous reviewers had also made this comment but this has not been addressed by the authors.

Thank you for your comment. We have now deleted any reference to BMI as a behavior throughout the manuscript. For instance, the title is now changed to: "Educational patterns of health behavior and BMI…” to differentiate between BMI and the other variables related to health behavior.

• The main outcome measures (health behaviours) were not very sensitive. For example, smoking was assessed as current, past or never – but did not include a measure of volume or duration, which is critical for estimating impacts on health. Pack years would have been a more sensitive measure.

We understand the objection. While the question to assess smoking behavior was not very sensitive, current health guidelines do not establish any safe threshold for smoking behavior regarding both volume of consumption and frequency. We have made sure to include these aspects in our discussion section (see line 355-359).

Also, participants were defined as physically active only if they reached the 150min/week threshold, but this obscures the ability to observe a dose-response relationship between education and physical activity. Further, the authors calculated physical activity minutes based on multiplying reported frequency and duration, but they estimated duration based on categorical data – this is not appropriate unless there is validation information for this?

Thank you for your relevant comment. The physical activity variable was coded to fit the units of current health recommendations, which is minutes per week. This process, which entailed multiplying the numerical values assigned to the answers to the questions regarding frequency and duration to obtain minutes per week has yet to be validated. The potential implications of this procedure have been now added in limitations in our discussion section (see line 345-349).

Furthermore, while exploring a dose-response relationship between education and physical activity would have been of great interest, this was outside the scope of our study. The study focuses explicitly on cut-off points for each variable as stated in current health recommendations, which we have now pointed out more clearly.

• The decision to measure SES by education alone was confusing. The authors reasoned that this would be a good measure because it is stable, yet their study was longitudinal, so if their predictor is stable, what is the benefit of a longitudinal analyses, as this would make it less likely to observe changes in health behaviours as a result of changes in SES over time (because education does not change like occupation and income, which could affect the ability to ‘afford’ engaging in good health behaviours). The authors provided no hypotheses - is this what they expected to observe? This is indeed what they found, but this seems entirely predictable based on previous work and the nature/stability of this variable. What would have been more interesting is to examine interactions between education (stable variable) and occupation or income (unstable variable) which might help tease apart how these variables contribute to health behaviours. For example, education might be important for healthy eating, except when one loses their job and income – where buying healthy foods might be more difficult. Similarly, education might be associated with higher alcohol consumption (because drinking can be expensive and it is often seen as status symbol)- yet this association might decrease in those who lose their job or income.

Thank you for your relevant comment. After careful consideration, we have now replaced the term “socioeconomic status” and left it as education level, to convey that the primary focus of the paper is investigating the association between education level and the patterns in both BMI and the other three health behavior variables. Furthermore, we have expanded the discussion section (lines 367-379) to thoroughly address both the positive and negative aspects of using education as a time-invariant variable, as you have rightly pointed out. In addition, it is important to acknowledge that in our study, most respondents had completed their education by the initial measurement point. On the other hand, salary is subject to more fluctuations over time, which adds complexity to the analyses involving this variable. Additionally, it should be noted that health behaviors can also impact income changes, and we have recognized this aspect as well. Moreover, Norway exhibits relatively small salary differences compared to other countries (1) making it a less influential factor in explaining changes in compliance with health-related guidelines. It is worth mentioning that income data in the Tromsø Study waves remain self-reported and have not undergone validation. Consequently, education, which has been validated (2), remains the optimal choice within the context of our study.

We fully agree that all studies need to have a clear aim. We believe that our aim is relatively clear, and that we have fulfilled that aim with the present work. Since our work is, as noted, more descriptive in its form, we chose not to formulate a formal hypothesis.

• Table 1 was confusing and hard to interpret because of the high number of independent groups that were presented across each health behaviour (and BMI is not a health behaviour). It would be more helpful and informative to classify each behaviour as getting better, worse or staying the same over time as a function of sex.

Thanks for your comment. The outcome of the MCA does precisely what the reviewer suggests, it presents the changes in the variables related to health behavior according to improvement, deteriorating or continuality, and was included separately for sex and age group. The reviewer mentioned that it could not be appreciated due to the low quality of the images. We apologize for that. However, the images were submitted according to the journal’s format requirement.

• I was not able to read the figures because the resolution was not high enough. The text summarizing the results of the MCA analysis was also confusing – possibly because of the multiple analyses and largely descriptive nature of the findings.

All the images were submitted according to the journal’s format requirements. If figures do not have the desired resolution, we believe that must be due to a conversion made by the journal when converting into PDF. We encourage the reviewers to access the figures through the links in the PDF or by asking the journal editorial team.

• The discussion did not explain any of the mechanisms behind the observed associations, which really diminishes the contribution of the manuscript. The text on page 21, line 281 to 305, seems to go in circles and say no more than education is tied to health behaviours and this is generally maintained over time. How this is association may be explained by interactions with other risk factors was not discussed.

Thank you for your comment. We have now added potential explanations behind the observed associations in our discussion section to provide useful insights to the reader.

• As the authors acknowledged, there is a high risk of selection bias and self-report bias, which undermines confidence in the data.

Thank you for pointing this out. The high risk of selection and self-report bias is discussed in lines 321-341.

References:

1. Kinge JM, Modalsli JH, Øverland S, Gjessing HK, Tollånes MC, Knudsen AK, et al. Association of Household Income With Life Expectancy and Cause-Specific Mortality in Norway, 2005-2015. Jama. 2019;321(19):1916-25.

2. Vo CQ, Samuelsen P-J, Sommerseth HL, Wisløff T, Wilsgaard T, Eggen AE. Validity of self-reported educational level in the Tromsø Study. Scandinavian journal of public health.0(0):14034948221088004.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 2.docx

Decision Letter 2

Petri Böckerman

21 Nov 2023

Educational patterns of health behaviors and body mass index: a longitudinal multiple correspondence analysis of a middle-aged general population, 2007-2016

PONE-D-22-22752R2

Dear Dr. Ibarra-Sanchez,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I am happy with the paper.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #6: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #5: Yes

Reviewer #6: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #5: (No Response)

Reviewer #6: Please see my comments to the editors. I am unable to provide any commentary on the merit of this paper. I have requested the editors to find another suitable reviewer for this purpose.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #5: No

Reviewer #6: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Petri Böckerman

24 Nov 2023

PONE-D-22-22752R2

Educational patterns of health behaviors and body mass index: a longitudinal multiple correspondence analysis of a middle-aged general population, 2007-2016

Dear Dr. Ibarra-Sanchez:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Petri Böckerman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Characteristics of participants in Tromsø 6 and Tromsø 7 and the cohort sample.

    a Percentage of participants in Tromsø 6 that also participated in Tromsø 7. b Percentage of participants in Tromsø 7 that also participated in Tromsø 6. High alcohol consumption: more than 14 units per week for men and 7 units per week for women. Low physical activity: Less than 150 minutes per week. Obesity: body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or more.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Patterns of health behavior and socioeconomic status - review.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    It is not possible to share our data due to the potential of reverse identification of de-identified sensitive participant information. The data can however be made available upon request to the Tromsø Study once applying for data access. Contact information for the Tromsø study can be found in the following link: https://uit.no/research/tromsostudy/project?pid=709148. The applications are handled by the Tromsø Study Data and Publication Committee. The authors of this study are not made responsible for ensuring access to data from the Tromsø Study.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES