TABLE 1—

Prevalence Proportion Ratios (PPRs; With 95% Confidence Intervals [CIs]) for Associations Between Socioeconomic Status and the Metabolic Syndrome: Pitt County Study, Pitt County, NC, 1998–2001

	No.	Weighted %	Weighted PPR (95% CI) Unadjusted	Weighted PPR (95% CI) Adjusteda
Total	1195	100
Adult socioeconomic status
Education
< High school	346	28.70	Reference	Reference
≥High school	849	71.30	0.63 (0.48, 0.83)	0.70 (0.51, 0.96)
Home ownership
Not home owner	807	62.63	Reference	Reference
Home owner	380	37.37	1.22 (0.93, 1.61)	1.12 (0.85, 1.48)
Occupationb
Unskilled	954	83.61	Reference	Reference
Skilled	196	16.39	0.84 (0.56, 1.27)	0.85 (0.57, 1.26)
Employment status
Unemployed	170	13.22	Reference	Reference
Employed	886	86.78	1.17 (0.82, 1.67)	1.21 (0.85, 1.73)
Childhood socioeconomic status
Parental occupationb
Unskilled	923	83.25	Reference	Reference
Skilled	189	16.75	0.84 (0.55, 1.27)	0.89 (0.59, 1.35)

Note. Some SES variables may not equal the total sample number due to missing data. Metabolic syndrome was coded as follows: 1 = ≥3 metabolic syndrome components; 0 = < 3 metabolic syndrome components. Metabolic syndrome components were defined according to Adult Treatment Panel III criteria; see the “Methods” section for additional detail. Of the participants, 235 (23%) were missing this metabolic syndrome variable because they refused the fasting blood draw or had missing values on blood pressure or waist circumference measures. No important differences were observed in waist circumference and systolic or diastolic blood pressure when we compared those who refused with those who did not refuse the blood draw.

^aAdjusted for age (continuous variable) and gender.

^bOccupation was coded as follows: unskilled = Hollingshead index score of 5–9; skilled = Hollingshead index score of 1–4. Parental occupation and adult occupation were defined using the same method.