TABLE 3.
Linear Combinations of Model Estimates Testing Relationships Between Adult Socioeconomic Position and Adult Body Mass Index for Black Adults, by Gender: Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey, California, 2000–2001
| Men, B (95% CI) | Women, B (95% CI) | |
| Family income,a $ | ||
| 0–9 999 (Ref) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 10 000–29 999 | 1.11* (1.02, 1.21) | 0.94 (0.85, 1.05) |
| 30 000–49 999 | 1.18 (0.99, 1.41) | 1.02 (0.93, 1.12) |
| 50 000–69 999 | 1.13 (0.97, 1.32) | 0.96 (0.74, 1.27) |
| ≥ 70 000 | 1.11* (1.01, 1.23) | 0.81** (0.74, 0.89) |
| Working-class status in adulthoodbc | 0.96 (0.86, 1.07) | 1.16** (1.08, 1.26) |
Note. CI = confidence interval. Weighted data were used. Body mass index was log transformed. Models were adjusted for gender, age (spline), marital status, and US nativity.
a
The sample size for men was n = 232; for women, n = 232.
b
Working-class status was defined based on the work of Krieger et al., who designated certain census occupational codes as working class on the basis of the level of supervisory responsibility they entail.17
c
The sample size for men was n = 163; for women, n = 163.
*P < .05; **P < .01.