Gupta S, Jordan IK, Mariño-Ramírez L. Sick individuals, sick populations revisited: a test of the Rose hypothesis for type 2 diabetes disparities.
BMJ PUBLIC HEALTH 2023;
1:e000655. [PMID:
38239263 PMCID:
PMC10795613 DOI:
10.1136/bmjph-2023-000655]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/22/2024]
Abstract
Introduction
The Rose hypothesis predicts that since genetic variation is greater within than between populations, genetic risk factors will be associated with individuals' risk of disease but not population disparities, and since socioenvironmental variation is greater between than within populations, socioenvironmental risk factors will be associated with population disparities but not individuals' disease risk.
Methods
We used the UK Biobank to test the Rose hypothesis for type 2 diabetes (T2D) ethnic disparities in the UK. Our cohort consists of 26 912 participants from Asian, black and white ethnic groups. Participants were characterised as T2D cases or controls based on the presence or absence of T2D diagnosis codes in electronic health records. T2D genetic risk was measured using a polygenic risk score (PRS), and socioeconomic deprivation was measured with the Townsend Index (TI). The variation of genetic (PRS) and socioeconomic (TI) risk factors within and between ethnic groups was calculated using analysis of variance. Multivariable logistic regression was used to associate PRS and TI with T2D cases, and mediation analysis was used to analyse the effect of PRS and TI on T2D ethnic group disparities.
Results
T2D prevalence differs for Asian 23.34% (OR=5.14, CI=4.68 to 5.65), black 16.64% (OR=3.81, CI=3.44 to 4.22) and white 7.35% (reference) ethnic groups in the UK. Both genetic and socioenvironmental T2D risk factors show greater within (w) than between (b) ethnic group variation: PRS w=64.60%, b=35.40%; TI w=71.18%, b=28.19%. Nevertheless, both genetic risk (PRS OR=1.96, CI=1.87 to 2.07) and socioeconomic deprivation (TI OR=1.09, CI=1.08 to 1.10) are associated with T2D individual risk and mediate T2D ethnic disparities (Asian PRS=22.5%, TI=9.8%; black PRS=32.0%, TI=25.3%).
Conclusion
A relative excess of within-group versus between-group variation does not preclude T2D risk factors from contributing to T2D ethnic disparities. Our results support an integrative approach to health disparities research that includes both genetic and socioenvironmental risk factors.
Collapse