# Social inequalities in health and mental health in France. The results of a 2010 population-based survey in Paris Metropolitan Area

Elsa Jacquet, Sarah Robert, Pierre Chauvin, Gwenn Menvielle, Maria Melchior, Gladys Ibanez

► To cite this version:

Elsa Jacquet, Sarah Robert, Pierre Chauvin, Gwenn Menvielle, Maria Melchior, et al.. Social inequalities in health and mental health in France. The results of a 2010 population-based survey in Paris Metropolitan Area. PLoS ONE, 2018, 13 (9), pp.e0203676. 10.1371/journal.pone.0203676. hal-01885019

HAL Id: hal-01885019

https://hal.sorbonne-universite.fr/hal-01885019

Submitted on 1 Oct 2018

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Social inequalities in health and mental health in France. The results of a 2010 population-based survey in Paris Metropolitan Area

Elsa Jacquet<sup>1,2</sup>, Sarah Robert<sup>3,4</sup>, Pierre Chauvin<sup>1,3</sup>, Gwenn Menvielle<sup>3</sup>, Maria Melchior<sup>3</sup>, Gladys Ibanez<sup>1,3,4*</sup>

1 Epidemiology and Population Health Research Centre (CESP), Paris-Sud University, UMRS 1018, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France, 2 Department of General Practice, Paris-Sud University, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France, 3 Department of Social Epidemiology, Sorbonne University, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'épidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP UMRS 1136), Paris, France, 4 Department of General Practice, Sorbonne University, Paris, France

* gladys.ibanez@sorbonne-universite.fr

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

The present study aimed to assess socioeconomic inequalities in general and mental health, depression and substance use disorders (daily tobacco use, hazardous alcohol use). Data from the 2010 SIRS (French acronym for Health, Inequalities, and Social Rup- tures) study, which is deemed to be representative of the French-speaking adult population living in the Paris Metropolitan Area, were analysed. Different socioeconomic position indi- cators were selected: education, income and perceived financial status. Absolute measures (the slope index of inequality (SII)) and relative measures (the odds ratio (OR) and relative index of inequality (RII)) of health inequalities were used. The OR, RII and SII were adjusted for age, household type and migration characteristics and all analyses were performed sep- arately for men and women. The study included 3,006 adults. The results showed significant relative and absolute socioeconomic inequalities in general, mental health and depression for all socioeconomic position indicators considered (education, income, and perceived financial status). The absolute inequalities were greater for women than for men. Strongest inequalities were observed by perceived financial status for men and women. Education seemed to play a stronger role in inequalities for women, whereas, for men, income seemed to play a stronger role. Only few socioeconomic inequalities were found in daily tobacco use, while a reversed gradient was observed for hazardous alcohol use. We hope that these results will be regularly re-evaluated and compared across time in order to monitor socio- economic inequalities in health.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

### OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Jacquet E, Robert S, Chauvin P, Menvielle G, Melchior M, Ibanez G (2018) Social inequalities in health and mental health in France. The results of a 2010 population-based survey in Paris Metropolitan Area. PLoS ONE 13(9): e0203676.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203676

**Editor:** Brecht Devleesschauwer, Sciensano, BELGIUM

**Received:** February 7, 2018

**Accepted:** August 26, 2018

**Published:** September 14, 2018

**Copyright:** © 2018 Jacquet et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data were deposited to Dryad, doi:10.5061/dryad.tg34gv7.

**Funding:** This study was supported by the National Research Agency (ANR) within the framework of the National Food Research Program (grant number ANR-07-PNRA-002-01; URL: http://www.agence-nationale-recherche.fr). The SIRS survey was also supported by the Institute for Public Health Research (IReSP) (grant number 2008-87;

## Introduction

In 2016, mental and substance use disorders accounted for 18.7% of global years lived with a disability (YLDs). Much greater than the disabilities associated with all infections, all injuries combined, all cardiovascular and circulatory diseases, and all cancers [1]. Socioeconomic
URL: http://www.iresp.net) and the French Interministerial Committee for Urban Affairs (grant number 2009-273; URL: http://www.ville.gouv.fr/?le-commissariat-general-a-l,9). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

circumstances are known to be associated with health and mental health since the end of the 19th century [2]. To date, many studies have documented the association between low socioeconomic position and poor self-rated health, mental health disorders, and substance use disorders [3–10].

Socioeconomic position (SEP) was defined by Mueller and Parcel in 1981 as “the relative position of an individual or family on a hierarchical structure, based on their access to, or control over, wealth, prestige and power” [11]. As SEP relates to health status, Shavers posited that it “is an attempt to capture an individual or group’s access to the basic resources required to achieve and maintain good health” [12]. In epidemiological studies, SEP has mostly been defined by education, income, or occupation [13]. These components may have a direct effect on health, but most likely, they operate through differential exposure to conditions that have more immediate effects on health [13]. Pathways by which SEP influences health include biological determinants, environmental exposure, social environment, health care, behaviour and lifestyle [10].

Several authors have argued that different socioeconomic position indicators implicate different pathways and may relate to (at least partly) different causal processes [14–16]. For example, Macintyre et al. showed that socioeconomic variations in self-rated health and depression depend on the indicator of SEP, and on gender [17]. Education can be taken as a marker of childhood social environment and health literacy. Income can translate into material or immaterial resources for health (better housing, clothing, food, etc) [18,19]. Poorer coping styles, more stressful life events, and weaker social support are some examples of risk factors prevalent when SEP is less favourable, and they could make up a subjective SEP indicator, such as perceived financial status. As SEP indicators are not interchangeable, some authors suggest that several SEP indicators should be examined simultaneously [16,20]. Some studies also demonstrated that different risk factors, including SEP, may operate differently for men and women [21,22]. Cullen et al. described the female resilience pattern, in which women may survive relatively better in circumstances of lesser socioeconomic advantage than men [23]. Taylor et al. showed that women’s greater tendency to seek and mobilise social support, especially during times of stress, could be “one of the most robust gender differences in adult human behaviour” [24].

To properly measure socioeconomic inequalities and gradients in health, current guidelines recommend the use of both absolute and relative measures, such as the slope index of inequality (SII) and relative index of inequality (RII) [25–27]. Our study compares different health outcome indicators in relation to various expressions of SEP, in the light of various analytic approaches. We examine self-rated general and mental health, depression, daily tobacco use, and hazardous alcohol use, according to three SEP dimensions (education, equivalised income, and perceived financial status). We hypothesise (a) that socioeconomic inequalities will be found in all health outcomes, (b) that trends of inequalities in health will differ by gender, and (c) that these inequalities will vary according to socioeconomic indicators.

# Materials and methods

## Study sample

Analyses were based on data from the 2010 wave of the SIRS cohort, a representative socio-epidemiological survey of the French-speaking adult population conducted since 2005 in the Paris metropolitan area (population 6.5 millions). The survey employed a stratified, 3-level, random sampling procedure, based on the ‘IRIS’ system of geographical units, classified according to their socioeconomic profile (poor, average, or rich) and the urban renewal policy attached to them (targeted renewal area or not) [28]. First, 50 census blocks, called ‘IRIS’, with
about 2000 inhabitants each, were selected, with an over-representation of the poorest neighbourhoods. Then, 60 households were randomly picked from each surveyed IRIS, and one adult was chosen from each household by the birthday method [29,30]. Only French-speaking adults who gave consent were included; minors and those who were not fluent enough in French to answer the questionnaire, too sick to answer, or refused to participate, were excluded. The latter group was replaced by an entirely new sample selection within the same IRIS (i.e., in a new sampled household). Data were collected between October 2009 and March 2010. A questionnaire was administered face-to-face during home visits. The SIRS cohort study is a collaborative project between the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM) and the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS). The methodology has been described in more detail elsewhere [31,32].

## Ethics

In accordance with European regulation, French observational studies from data obtained without any additional therapy or monitoring procedure did not need the approval of an institutional review board/independent ethics committee before the year 2014 [33]. The SIRS protocol obtained regulatory approval and legal authorisation from two French national authorities (data-protection approval): the Comité Consultatif sur le Traitement de l'Information en matière de Recherche dans le domaine de la Santé (CCTIRS) (authorisation number 904251) and the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) (authorisation number 05-1024). Study participants provided verbal informed consent. Written consent was not necessary because the survey did not fall under the category of biomedical research (as defined by French law) and did not collect any personal identification data.

## Outcome measures

**Self-rated general and mental health, depression.** Self-rated general health (SRGH) was measured using the question: 'How is your health in general?' Self-rated mental health (SRMH) was measured using the question: 'How is your mental and emotional health in general?' The participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale. The ratings were dichotomised into 'very good and good' health versus 'average, poor or very poor' health.

Depression was assessed using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) module related to major depression, based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV and the International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria [14]. The MINI was used in many studies and its validity was well assessed [34–37].

**Substance use disorders.** Daily tobacco use and hazardous alcohol use were used in our study to estimate substance use disorders. Daily tobacco use was assessed based on the question: 'Do you smoke, even occasionally?' The answer 'I smoke everyday (even one cigarette)' was counted as 'Yes' and the other answers 'I smoke occasionally', 'I quit smoking', 'I have never smoked', were counted as 'No'. Drinking patterns were explored using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption questions (AUDIT-C) [38,39]. This is a three-items questionnaire, each of them scored from 0 to 4 points, giving a maximum total score of 12 points. According to their AUDIT-C score, patients were classified as hazardous drinkers or not (AUDIT-C $\ge$ 4 in men, $\ge$ 3 in women) [40].

According to the Keppel methodological guidelines, all health or substance use disorders indicators were expressed in terms of adverse events [26].

**Socioeconomic position indicators.** The SEP of participants was measured by their education, income, and perceived financial status. Education was defined as the highest educational attainment achieved by an individual participant and categorised into four standard
hierarchic groups: none or primary education (up to approximately 6 years of education), lower secondary education (up to approximately 9 years of schooling), higher secondary education (up to approximately 12 years), and tertiary education (bachelor's degree or higher). Equivalised income was calculated based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-modified scale using self-reported post-tax income. The missing data (8.9% of the responses) were imputed according to a regression model including age, level of education, profession, the number of adults and minors in the household. Equivalised income was classified into four categories according to the 2009 French Taxable Income Survey: below poverty line (€950 per month per consumption unit), between poverty line and median income (€950-1,500 per month per consumption unit), between median income and the income of the wealthiest ten percent of the French population (€1,500-3,000 per month per consumption unit), and above €3,000 per month per consumption unit. Participants' perceived financial status was assessed using the question: 'How do you describe your financial situation in general?' The possible answers were 'comfortable', 'OK', 'short of money' and 'with financial difficulties'.

## Analytical strategy

First, we described the characteristics of the study population. All proportions were weighted to take into account the sampling method and the poststratification adjustment for age and gender, according to the general population census data. Chi-square tests were used to compare proportions between genders.

Then, we compared the inequalities in general and mental health, depression and substance use disorders, according to the SEP indicators. The results were presented with two series of multivariate logistic regression models. In the first series of models, OR, RII and SII were adjusted for age. Age was included as a categorical variable (18-29 years old; 30-49 years old; 50-64 years old; older than 65 years). In the second series of models, the covariates age, migration characteristics (French, French with foreign parents, foreigners), and household type (one-person; couple with or without children; single-parent) were included. The OR represents the chance (odds) of experiencing poor general or mental health or substance use disorders if individuals are in the lowest SEP, with regard to the highest. Then, the RII and the SI (with 95% confidence intervals) were used to measure socioeconomic gradients in health, mental health, and substance use disorders. Both RII and SII were calculated according to the Kunst and Mackenbach method [41]. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated for SII and RII as follows: $95\%CI = S \pm c \times SES$, where S is the point estimate for SII or RII, SES is the standard error for S, and c is the critical 5% value from a t distribution with g - 2 df, with g being the number of SEP groups and df the number of degrees of freedom [42,43]. The RII and SII present the advantage of taking into account the social structure of the population, which is the proportion of each category of socioeconomic indicator in the studied population. They use all available data and are not restricted to comparisons of extreme groups, by treating the SEP indicators as a continuous variable. They constitute two different types of measures of socioeconomic inequalities in health: one absolute (SII) and one relative (RII). The SII is the absolute predicted difference in health outcome rates between the theoretical highest and the lowest SEP in the population; it is interpreted as the difference in predicted health rates at the two extremes of the socioeconomic spectrum, and the RII as their ratio. An SII of 0, or an RII of 1 indicates that there is no consistent relationship between health or substance use and the SEP indicator. A high SII or RII value suggests the existence of a socioeconomic gradient in health, and the higher the score the greater the magnitude of the inequity. A negative SII value means that the health outcome is higher at the lowest level of SEP.
All analyses were conducted for men and women separately, since the literature usually reports gender differences regarding factors associated with mental and substance use disorders. Analyses were performed using the statistical software STATA 13.1 [44].

# Results

## Characteristics of the study population

The sample consisted of 1,595 women (53.1%) and 1,411 men (46.9%). The mean age was 45 years with a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 100 years. More than half of the respondents were living with a partner (married or not) and had one child or more. Men and women were comparable in terms of general health; about 20% reported being in poor health. Men had better mental health and were diagnosed less often with a major depressive disorder, than women (6.0% and 10.4%, respectively). Daily tobacco use was more common among men (men: 31.1%; women: 17.0%) as was hazardous alcohol use (men: 48.4%, women: 34.1%). Men had higher education than women. Both genders were comparable in terms of equivalised income. About 17% of the respondents had an income below poverty line, while more than 40% stated being 'short of money' or experiencing 'financial difficulties'. Perceived financial status was worse for women. Table 1 depicts the prevalence of health and substance use disorders according to SEP indicators.

The inequalities in general and mental health, depression and substance use disorders, according to the SEP indicators are presented in Table 2 (first series of models controlled for age) and Table 3 (second series of models controlled for age, household type and migration characteristics).

## General, mental health and depression

The results of relative measurements showed socioeconomic inequalities for most of the considered SEP indicators (education, income, and perceived financial status). There was a higher risk of both poor general and mental health for the most disadvantaged SEP, compared to the most advantaged (OR) and an inequality gradient (RII) in general and mental health.

Absolute inequalities for general and mental health varied widely according to SEP indicators. In adjusted analyses, the SII ranged from 3.15% [95%CI 1.93 to 4.37], to 39.44% [95%CI 31.05 to 47.85], suggesting that poor general health was estimated to be up to 39.44% points higher at the bottom, versus the top of perceived financial status distribution for women.

The magnitude of educational inequality among women was statistically higher than men. For example, the SII$_{poor\_SRGH}$ was 30.53 [95%CI 27.07 to 34.00] for women versus 16.07 [95% CI 12.99 to 19.16] for men. Similar results were found for poor mental health and depression. For all analyses, strongest inequalities were observed by perceived financial status. Education seemed to play a stronger role in inequalities for women, whereas, for men, income seemed to play a stronger role.

## Substance use disorders

For daily tobacco use, the results of relative measurements did not show socioeconomic inequalities, with most of the SEP indicators considered, except for the perceived financial status. Absolute inequalities for daily tobacco use varied according to SEP indicators. In adjusted analyses, the SII$_{men}$ ranged from 7.90% for the subgroup 'education' [95%CI 6.67 to 9.12] to 16.23% for the subgroup 'perceived financial status' [95%CI 13.01 to 19.45]. Results were similar for women, considering education and perceived financial status. For all analyses, strongest inequalities were observed by perceived financial status.
<table><caption>Table 1. Weighted prevalence of health and substance use disorders according to socioeconomic position indicators.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="4">Poor self-rated general health</th><th colspan="4">Poor self-rated mental health</th><th colspan="4">Major depressive disorder</th><th colspan="4">Daily tobacco use</th><th colspan="4">Hazardous alcohol use</th></tr><tr><th colspan="2">men</th><th colspan="2">women</th><th colspan="2">men</th><th colspan="2">women</th><th colspan="2">men</th><th colspan="2">women</th><th colspan="2">men</th><th colspan="2">women</th><th colspan="2">men</th><th colspan="2">women</th></tr><tr><th>n</th><th>n</th><th>%</th><th>p</th><th>%</th><th>p</th><th>%</th><th>p</th><th>%</th><th>p</th><th>%</th><th>p</th><th>%</th><th>p</th><th>%</th><th>p</th><th>%</th><th>p</th><th>%</th><th>p</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Education</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Tertiary</td><td>795</td><td>902</td><td>15.4</td><td>14.5</td><td>0.001</td><td>14.5</td><td>0.036</td><td>16.9</td><td>0.291</td><td>6.9</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.196</td><td>17.1</td><td>0.180</td><td>0.003</td><td>53.1</td><td>0.003</td><td>42.6</td><td>0.001</td><td>42.6</td></tr><tr><td>Higher secondary</td><td>304</td><td>303</td><td>22.4</td><td>26.5</td><td>0.001</td><td>18.9</td><td>29.5</td><td>5.1</td><td>14.0</td><td>33.2</td><td>18.2</td><td>47.0</td><td>26.7</td><td>26.7</td><td>26.7</td><td>26.7</td><td>26.7</td><td>26.7</td><td>26.7</td></tr><tr><td>Lower secondary</td><td>205</td><td>276</td><td>27.8</td><td>35.5</td><td>0.001</td><td>21.3</td><td>30.1</td><td>8.7</td><td>16.4</td><td>34.8</td><td>20.3</td><td>40.0</td><td>33.9</td><td>5.7</td><td>33.9</td><td>20.4</td><td>20.4</td><td>20.4</td><td>20.4</td></tr><tr><td>Primary school or under</td><td>107</td><td>114</td><td>42.4</td><td>53.2</td><td>0.001</td><td>25.4</td><td>34.3</td><td>8.8</td><td>14.1</td><td>21.0</td><td>5.7</td><td>33.9</td><td>0.783</td><td>60.9</td><td>53.1</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td></tr><tr><td>Equivalised income</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>≥ €3.000/CU</td><td>301</td><td>288</td><td>19.2</td><td>18.9</td><td>0.002</td><td>15.3</td><td>22.3</td><td>3.4</td><td>8.3</td><td>25.7</td><td>15.2</td><td>0.001</td><td>60.9</td><td>53.1</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>€1.500-3.000/CU</td><td>555</td><td>649</td><td>15.1</td><td>20.9</td><td>0.001</td><td>11.8</td><td>16.5</td><td>3.6</td><td>8.0</td><td>32.7</td><td>17.2</td><td>0.001</td><td>55.7</td><td>39.2</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>€950-1.500/CU</td><td>322</td><td>381</td><td>24.5</td><td>23.4</td><td>0.001</td><td>22.7</td><td>24.6</td><td>7.1</td><td>10.5</td><td>30.1</td><td>17.2</td><td>0.001</td><td>38.4</td><td>22.8</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>&lt;€950/CU</td><td>233</td><td>276</td><td>31.1</td><td>32.4</td><td>0.001</td><td>25.1</td><td>35.9</td><td>13.5</td><td>18.0</td><td>35.5</td><td>18.5</td><td>0.001</td><td>28.7</td><td>18.1</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived financial status</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Comfortable</td><td>309</td><td>332</td><td>15.3</td><td>14.0</td><td>0.001</td><td>9.0</td><td>11.4</td><td>3.2</td><td>4.0</td><td>22.1</td><td>10.8</td><td>0.001</td><td>63.1</td><td>44.5</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>It's OK</td><td>512</td><td>524</td><td>14.5</td><td>17.0</td><td>0.001</td><td>13.6</td><td>18.3</td><td>4.1</td><td>8.2</td><td>33.5</td><td>16.5</td><td>0.001</td><td>47.9</td><td>36.3</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Short of money</td><td>388</td><td>510</td><td>26.5</td><td>29.0</td><td>0.001</td><td>21.1</td><td>26.2</td><td>5.2</td><td>12.1</td><td>34.8</td><td>21.9</td><td>0.001</td><td>44.4</td><td>29.8</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td><td>20.0</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Financial difficulties</td><td>152</td><td>174</td><td>38.4</td><td>44.5</td><td>0.001</td><td>38.3</td><td>46.9</td><td>20.8</td><td>27.4</td><td>37.1</td><td>21.5</td><td>31.6</td><td>22.4</td><td>22.4</td><td>22.4</td><td>22.4</td><td>22.4</td><td>22.4</td><td>22.4</td></tr></tbody></table>

CU, per consumption unit

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203676.t001
<table><caption>Table 2. Socioeconomic inequalities in health and substance use disorders according to socioeconomic position indicators: Odds ratio, relative index of inequality and slope index of inequality controlled for age (95% confidence interval).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">MEN</th><th colspan="3">WOMEN</th></tr><tr><th>ORage (95% CI)</th><th>RIIage (95% CI)</th><th>SIIage (95%CI)</th><th>ORage (95% CI)</th><th>RIIage (95% CI)</th><th>SIIage (95%CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Poor self-rated general health</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>2.90<br>(1.80;4.68)</td><td>2.67<br>(1.65;4.33)</td><td>21.20<br>(16.51;25.90)</td><td>4.76<br>(3.10;7.31)</td><td>4.18<br>(2.95;5.92)</td><td>34.78<br>(30.50;39.07)</td></tr><tr><td>Equivalised income</td><td>3.66<br>(2.02;6.63)</td><td>3.51<br>(2.07;5.97)</td><td>27.77<br>(22.39;33.16)</td><td>3.50<br>(2.23;5.50)</td><td>2.70<br>(1.86;3.93)</td><td>24.46<br>(20.87;28.06)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived financial status</td><td>5.05<br>(2.75;9.28)</td><td>4.64<br>(2.71;7.94)</td><td>35.33<br>(26.87;43.80)</td><td>7.31<br>(3.75;14.26)</td><td>5.27<br>(3.16;8.79)</td><td>44.89<br>(35.91;52.92)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Poor self-rated mental health</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>1.94<br>(1.06;3.54)</td><td>1.90<br>(1.11;3.24)</td><td>11.35<br>(8.15;14.55)</td><td>2.23<br>(1.43;3.47)</td><td>2.58<br>(1.85;3.59)</td><td>22.63<br>(19.71;25.55)</td></tr><tr><td>Equivalised income</td><td>2.39<br>(1.28;4.44)</td><td>3.09<br>(1.49;6.42)</td><td>20.10<br>(14.70;25.51)</td><td>2.51<br>(1.61;3.92)</td><td>2.73<br>(1.76;4.24)</td><td>24.09<br>(21.13;27.05)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived financial status</td><td>6.75<br>(3.71;12.28)</td><td>5.83<br>(3.23;10.52)</td><td>33.76<br>(24.53;42.99)</td><td>8.02<br>(4.89;13.16)</td><td>5.29<br>(3.51;7.99)</td><td>42.59<br>(35.20;49.98)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Major depressive disorder</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>1.70<br>(0.75;3.88)</td><td>1.90<br>(0.66;5.44)</td><td>3.98<br>(2.50;5.44)</td><td>2.37<br>(1.33;4.23)</td><td>3.96<br>(2.30;6.84)</td><td>15.54<br>(12.61;18.47)</td></tr><tr><td>Equivalised income</td><td>5.55<br>(1.76;17.50)</td><td>9.26<br>(2.40;35.79)</td><td>14.36<br>(8.26;20.46)</td><td>2.69<br>(1.57;4.61)</td><td>3.19<br>(1.88;5.40)</td><td>12.65<br>(9.40;15.89)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived financial status</td><td>8.86<br>(2.82;27.85)</td><td>11.84<br>(3.60;38.95)</td><td>17.42<br>(10.63;24.20)</td><td>9.50<br>(4.87;18.54)</td><td>8.57<br>(4.42;16.64)</td><td>26.86<br>(19.32;34.39)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Daily tobacco use</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>0.79<br>(0.45;1.39)</td><td>1.08<br>(0.73;1.59)</td><td>2.32<br>(0.85;3.80)</td><td>0.41<br>(0.18;0.94)</td><td>1.10<br>(0.67;1.82)</td><td>1.70<br>(0.13;3.26)</td></tr><tr><td>Equivalised income</td><td>1.30<br>(0.75;2.25)</td><td>1.13<br>(0.67;1.90)</td><td>3.72<br>(3.89;3.54)</td><td>0.99<br>(0.60;1.62)</td><td>0.96<br>(0.60;1.53)</td><td>-0.64<br>(-0.65;-0.63)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived financial status</td><td>1.70<br>(0.96;2.99)</td><td>1.48<br>(0.87;2.52)</td><td>12.56<br>(11.01;14.11)</td><td>1.97<br>(1.17;3.30)</td><td>2.11<br>(1.43;3.11)</td><td>13.71<br>(11.06;16.38)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Hazardous alcohol use</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>0.37<br>(0.23;0.62)</td><td>0.55<br>(0.39;0.76)</td><td>-28.40<br>(-28.87;-30.01)</td><td>0.24<br>(0.15;0.41)</td><td>0.25<br>(0.19;0.34)</td><td>-45.59<br>(-41.63;-49.55)</td></tr><tr><td>Equivalised income</td><td>0.27<br>(0.15;0.47)</td><td>0.42<br>(0.28;0.62)</td><td>-42.28<br>(-38.98;-55.58)</td><td>0.20<br>(0.12;0.34)</td><td>0.26<br>(0.18;0.38)</td><td>-44.65<br>(-40.61;-48.70)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived financial status</td><td>0.28<br>(0.17;0.49)</td><td>0.52<br>(0.38;0.70)</td><td>-31.29<br>(-30.23;-32.35)</td><td>0.37<br>(0.24;0.59)</td><td>0.49<br>(0.33;0.71)</td><td>-23.68<br>(-19.10;-28.27)</td></tr></tbody></table>

ORage, odds ratio controlled for age; CI, confidence interval; RIIage, relative index of inequality controlled for age; SIIage, slope index of inequality controlled for age

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203676.t002

For hazardous alcohol use, the results of relative measurements showed socioeconomic inequalities for all the SEP indicators considered (education, income, perceived financial status). There was a higher risk of hazardous alcohol use for the most advantaged SEP, compared to the most disadvantaged (OR) and a reverse inequality gradient (RII). In adjusted analyses, the SII<sub>men</sub> ranged from -21.09% for the subgroup 'education' [95%CI -18.62 to -23.57] to -33.54% for the subgroup 'equivalised income' [95%CI -30.02 to -37.07]. These inequalities
<table><caption>Table 3. Socioeconomic inequalities in health and substance use disorders according to socioeconomic position indicators: Odds ratio, relative index of inequality and slope index of inequality controlled for age, household type and migration characteristics (95% confidence interval).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"></th><th colspan="3">MEN</th><th colspan="3">WOMEN</th></tr><tr><th>OR (95%CI)</th><th>RII (95%CI)</th><th>SII (95%CI)</th><th>OR (95%CI)</th><th>RII (95%CI)</th><th>SII (95%CI)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Poor self-rated general health</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>2.09<br>(1.23;3.55)</td><td>2.14<br>(1.34;3.41)</td><td>16.07<br>(12.99;19.16)</td><td>4.28<br>(2.75;6.68)</td><td>3.60<br>(2.59;5.00)</td><td>30.53<br>(27.07;34.00)</td></tr><tr><td>Equivalised income</td><td>3.14<br>(1.60;6.16)</td><td>2.87<br>(1.69;5.15)</td><td>22.72<br>(17.73;27.70)</td><td>2.71<br>(1.69;4.34)</td><td>2.15<br>(1.44;3.22)</td><td>18.37<br>(15.72;21.00)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived financial status</td><td>4.01<br>(2.11;7.62)</td><td>3.61<br>(2.09;6.24)</td><td>28.39<br>(21.60;35.18)</td><td>6.30<br>(3.13;12.69)</td><td>4.56<br>(2.63;7.89)</td><td>39.44<br>(31.05;47.85)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Poor self-rated mental health</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>1.79<br>(0.89;3.58)</td><td>1.81<br>(0.98;3.34)</td><td>10.49<br>(7.03;13.94)</td><td>2.06<br>(1.31;3.26)</td><td>2.30<br>(1.66;3.21)</td><td>19.66<br>(17.53;21.81)</td></tr><tr><td>Equivalised income</td><td>2.43<br>(1.28;4.61)</td><td>2.95<br>(1.45;6.00)</td><td>19.15<br>(13.95;24.36)</td><td>2.10<br>(1.29;3.42)</td><td>2.26<br>(1.39;3.67)</td><td>19.07<br>(16.53;21.61)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived financial status</td><td>6.34<br>(3.35;12;00)</td><td>5.41<br>(3.00;9.73)</td><td>31.94<br>(22.48;41.39)</td><td>6.72<br>(3.93;11.50)</td><td>4.52<br>(2.88;7.10)</td><td>37.48<br>(29.87;45.07)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Major depressive disorder</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>1.44<br>(0.57;3.62)</td><td>1.67<br>(0.54;5.16)</td><td>3.15 (1.93;4.37)</td><td>2.18<br>(1.20;3.96)</td><td>3.52<br>(1.96;6.29)</td><td>13.92<br>(10.94;16.90)</td></tr><tr><td>Equivalised income</td><td>5.51<br>(1.76;17.27)</td><td>8.50<br>(2.11;34.22)</td><td>13.58<br>(7.01;25.14)</td><td>2.22<br>(1.24;3.96)</td><td>2.53<br>(1.42;4.49)</td><td>9.84<br>(7.06;12.63)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived financial status</td><td>7.85<br>(2.50;24.70)</td><td>10.00<br>(3.43;29.03)</td><td>15.63<br>(9.73;18.53)</td><td>8.14<br>(4.02;16.47)</td><td>7.21<br>(3.68;14.13)</td><td>23.79<br>(16.95;30.62)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Daily tobacco use</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>1.12<br>(0.61;2.05)</td><td>1.30<br>(0.88;1.92)</td><td>8.35<br>(5.89;10.81)</td><td>0.52<br>(0.23;1.18)</td><td>1.28<br>(0.74;2.23)</td><td>4.36 (1.29;7.42)</td></tr><tr><td>Equivalised income</td><td>1.58<br>(0.90;2.79)</td><td>1.29<br>(0.73;2.26)</td><td>7.90 (6.67;9.12)</td><td>0.95<br>(0.54;1.67)</td><td>0.91<br>(0.54;1.55)</td><td>-1.57 (-1.93;-1.21)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived financial status</td><td>1.93<br>(1.04;3.56)</td><td>1.65<br>(0.94;2.92)</td><td>16.23<br>(13.01;19.45)</td><td>1.66<br>(0.95;2.91)</td><td>1.90<br>(1.26;2.87)</td><td>11.63<br>(8.85;14.40)</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7"><strong>Hazardous alcohol use</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Education</td><td>0.47<br>(0.28;0.82)</td><td>0.64<br>(0.44;0.92)</td><td>-21.09 (-18.62;-23.57)</td><td>0.29<br>(0.17;0.50)</td><td>0.29<br>(0.22;0.40)</td><td>-40.00 (-36.41;-43.54)</td></tr><tr><td>Equivalised income</td><td>0.33<br>(0.19;0.59)</td><td>0.49<br>(0.32;0.75)</td><td>-33.54 (-30.02;-37.07)</td><td>0.22<br>(0.12;0.40)</td><td>0.28<br>(0.19;0.42)</td><td>-41.12 (-36.53;-45.72)</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived financial status</td><td>0.38<br>(0.21;0.66)</td><td>0.62<br>(0.45;0.86)</td><td>-22.63 (-21.27;-23.99)</td><td>0.36<br>(0.22;0.57)</td><td>0.49<br>(0.35;0.70)</td><td>-23.22 (-18.52;-27.93)</td></tr></tbody></table>

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; RII, relative index of inequality; SII, slope index of inequality

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203676.t003

were greater for women than for men. For all analyses, strongest inequalities were observed by equivalised income.

# Discussion

## Summary of findings

The results showed significant relative and absolute socioeconomic inequalities in general, mental health and depression for all considered SEP indicators (education, income, and
perceived financial status). The absolute inequalities were greater for women than for men. Strongest inequalities were observed by perceived financial status for men and women. Education seemed to play a stronger role in inequalities for women, whereas for men, income seemed to play a stronger role. Few socioeconomic inequalities were found in daily tobacco use, while a reversed gradient was observed for hazardous alcohol use. These results indicate that our hypotheses seem to be confirmed.

## Comparison with other studies

Many studies have demonstrated the existence of socioeconomic inequalities in general health and mental health [45–47]. Our results show similar associations in France, using income, education and perceived financial status. In our study, we observed larger absolute inequalities in women than in men. These differences can result from a higher prevalence in women of self-rated health, mental health and depression, compared to men. This result confirms the need to present both relative and absolute results in further studies, to get a comprehensive picture of inequalities.

The higher prevalence of mental health disorders in lower socioeconomic groups is likely to be explained by causation and selection processes [47]. Persons in a lower socio-economic position may experience mental health disorders (causation), which may lead to a downward SEP (selection). In the causation process, mental health inequalities are mainly caused by the higher exposure of lower socioeconomic groups to unfavourable material, psychosocial and behavioural factors. In our study, the strongest inequalities were observed by perceived financial status. This result could support the relative deprivation hypothesis, which “posits that increasing income inequality in a society will heighten an individual’s sense of relative deprivation, resulting in frustration, shame, stress, and maladaptive coping responses (e.g. smoking)” [48,49]. We hypothesise that perceived financial status reflects the current economic burden and stress level of an individual, more than education or income. Our study also shows that education seemed to play a stronger role in inequalities for women, whereas, for men, income seemed to play a stronger role. These associations have been little studied and could be further investigated in cohort studies [50–52].

Our results show absolute inequalities for daily tobacco use. This inequality is well known, especially in western European countries [47,53]. However, we did not observe relative inequalities for daily tobacco use. This result is due to the fact that prevalence of daily tobacco use among “primary school or under” respondents was very low in our study. If we restrict the analysis to people with at least secondary education, a similar gradient consistent with the literature is observed for relative and absolute inequalities. Our results also describe a reverse association between SEP (assessed by education, income and perceived financial status) and hazardous alcohol use. A European study demonstrated that in France (as well as in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands), women with the highest education level were more likely to have high alcohol consumption habits [54]. The Paris Metropolitan Area is inhabited by large migrant groups, many of whom are Muslims, who generally do not drink alcohol. However, the reverse association between hazardous alcohol use and financial SEP indicators remained significant when controlled for migration characteristics. The existing studies in France revealed that daily alcohol use is generally associated with positive beliefs and expectations, especially for older people [55]. This may partly account for the positive association between higher SEP and higher alcohol consumption. Our results are likely to differ for heavy drinking and should be further investigated.
## Strengths and limitations

To our knowledge, this is the first study in France to have systematically evaluated socioeco-
nomic inequalities and gradients in general health, mental health, and substance use disorders.
The SIRS survey was representative of the population residing in the Paris Metropolitan Area
(Paris and its neighbouring departments). Data collection through face-to-face interviews
served to confirm certain data and limit the amount of missing data. According to recent
guidelines, multiple measures of socioeconomic inequalities in health were used. The ORs
allowed us to estimate an odds at a given point in time, and to compare our results with
numerous studies. The advantage of RII is that it can adapt to the structural changes of a popu-
lation in time or space, and compare men and women, or different territories, with different
socioeconomic structures. The use of summary measures of inequalities, such as RII and SII,
involved assessing SEPs with hierarchical indicators. We used income and education, which
are among the most commonly used indicators, and perceived financial status, which is
known to be a determinant of self-rated psychological well-being [56]. Comparisons between
socioeconomic groups were performed by examining the overlap between confidence inter-
vals. No statistical test was undertaken, though the p-value may provide complementary types
of information [57,58]. The cohort applied only to French-speaking residents in the Paris Met-
ropolitan Area. It excluded the non-French-speaking migrant population living in precarious
conditions, and potentially in poorer health. Likewise, homeless people were not surveyed.
This might have resulted in undervalued social inequalities [59]. Our results were limited to
our sample size and the statistical power of our analysis, especially for depression, since there
were only 85 men and 166 women diagnosed with depression in our study population. This
can explain the large confidence intervals of OR and RII, regarding socioeconomic inequalities
in depression among men. Finally, we chose not to examine drug use due to the very low posi-
tive response rate to the question of drug consumption in the SIRS study.

## Conclusion

The current persistence of socioeconomic inequalities in health, despite public health policies and campaigns, makes it important to provide data to quantify and monitor socioeconomic inequalities in several fields of health. Our study provided this type of data and proved that for individuals with the least favourable conditions, socioeconomic inequalities in general and mental health are marked. Our results, which could be monitored over time and compared across countries, are policy relevant. We hope that this work could help improve programs targeting disadvantaged subgroups in general health, mental health, and substance use disorders.

## Supporting information

S1 Appendix. English questionnaire.
(PDF)

S2 Appendix. French questionnaire.
(PDF)

## Author Contributions

**Conceptualization:** Sarah Robert, Pierre Chauvin, Gwenn Menvielle, Maria Melchior, Gladys Ibanez.

**Data curation:** Elsa Jacquet, Pierre Chauvin.

**Formal analysis:** Elsa Jacquet, Pierre Chauvin, Gladys Ibanez.
**Methodology:** Elsa Jacquet, Sarah Robert, Pierre Chauvin, Gwenn Menvielle, Maria Melchior, Gladys Ibanez.

**Resources:** Elsa Jacquet, Pierre Chauvin.

**Software:** Elsa Jacquet, Sarah Robert, Gwenn Menvielle.

**Supervision:** Pierre Chauvin, Maria Melchior, Gladys Ibanez.

**Validation:** Elsa Jacquet, Pierre Chauvin, Gwenn Menvielle, Maria Melchior, Gladys Ibanez.

**Visualization:** Gwenn Menvielle.

**Writing – original draft:** Elsa Jacquet, Sarah Robert.

**Writing – review & editing:** Pierre Chauvin, Gwenn Menvielle, Maria Melchior, Gladys Ibanez.

## References

1. GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017; 390 (10100):1211–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2 PMID: 28919117

2. Melchior M, Galéra C, Pryor L. Psychopathology and socioeconomic position: what can be done to break the vicious circle? Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2017; 26(7):747–748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-017-1017-8 PMID: 28620781

3. Cavelaars AE, Kunst AE, Geurts JJ, Crialesi R, Grötvedt L, Helmert U, et al. Differences in self reported morbidity by educational level: a comparison of 11 western European countries. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998; 52(4):219–227. PMID: 9616407

4. Mackenbach J, Stirbu I, Roskam A-JR, Schaap MM, Menvielle G, Leinsalu M, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in 22 European countries. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(23):2468–2481. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0707519 PMID: 18525043

5. Rehm J, Mathers C, Popova S, Thavorncharoensap M, Teerawattananon Y, Patra J. Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders. Lancet. 2009; 373(9682):2223–2233. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60746-7 PMID: 19560604

6. Kunst AE, Bos V, Lahelma E, Bartley M, Lissau I, Regidor E, et al. Trends in socioeconomic inequalities in self-assessed health in 10 European countries. Int J Epidemiol. 2005; 34(2):295–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyh342 PMID: 15563586

7. Schütte S, Chastang J-F, Parent-Thirion A, Vermeylen G, Niedhammer I. Social differences in self-reported health among men and women in 31 countries in Europe. Scand J Public Health. 2013; 41 (1):51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494812469854 PMID: 23341354

8. Präg P, Subramanian SV. Educational inequalities in self-rated health across US states and European countries. Int J Public Health. 2017; 62(6):709–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-017-0981-6 PMID: 28534061

9. Moor I, Günther S, Knöchelmann A, Hoebel J, Pförtner TK, Lampert T, et al. Educational inequalities in subjective health in Germany from 1994 to 2014: a trend analysis using the German Socio-Economic Panel study (GSOEP). BMJ Open. 2018; 8(6):e019755. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019755 PMID: 29884694

10. Adler NE, Newman K. Socioeconomic disparities in health: pathways and policies. Health Aff Proj Hope. 2002; 21(2):60–76.

11. McGinnis JM, Foege WH. Actual causes of death in the United States. JAMA. 1993; 270(18):2207–2212. PMID: 8411605

12. Mueller CW, Parcel TL. Measures of Socioeconomic Status: Alternatives and Recommendations. Child Dev. 1981; 52(1):13–30.

13. Shavers VL. Measurement of socioeconomic status in health disparities research. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007; 99(9):1013–1023. PMID: 17913111
14. Khang YH, Yun SC, Lynch JW. Monitoring trends in socioeconomic health inequalities: it matters how you measure. BMC Public Health. 2008; 8:66. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-66 PMID: 18284701

15. Schnittker J. Education and the changing shape of the income gradient in health. J Health Soc Behav. 2004; 45(3):286-305. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650404500304 PMID: 15595508

16. Charafeddine R, Demarest S, Van der Heyden J, Tafforeau J, Van Oyen H. Using multiple measures of inequalities to study the time trends in social inequalities in smoking. Eur J Public Health. 2013; 23 (4):546-551. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cks083 PMID: 22711785

17. Macintyre S, McKay L, Der G, Hiscock R. Socio-economic position and health: what you observe depends on how you measure it. J Public Health Med. 2003; 25(4):288-294. PMID: 14747587

18. Moor I, Spallek J, Richter M. Explaining socioeconomic inequalities in self-rated health: a systematic review of the relative contribution of material, psychosocial and behavioural factors. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2017; 71(6):565-575. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2016-207589 PMID: 27682963

19. Kestilä L, Martelin T, Rahkonen O, Härkänen T, Koskinen S. The contribution of childhood circumstances, current circumstances and health behaviour to educational health differences in early adulthood. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9:164. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-164 PMID: 19476659

20. Geyer S, Hemström O, Peter R, Vågerö D. Education, income, and occupational class cannot be used interchangeably in social epidemiology. Empirical evidence against a common practice. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006; 60(9):804-810. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2005.041319 PMID: 16905727

21. Menvielle G, Kunst AE, Stirbu I, Strand BH, Borrell C, Regidor E, et al. Educational differences in cancer mortality among women and men: a gender pattern that differs across Europe. Br J Cancer. 2008; 98 (5):1012-1019. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604274 PMID: 18283307

22. Martikainen P, Adda J, Ferrie JE, Davey Smith G, Marmot M. Effects of income and wealth on GHQ depression and poor self rated health in white collar women and men in the Whitehall II study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003; 57(9):718-723. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.57.9.718 PMID: 12933779

23. Cullen MR, Baiocchi M, Eggleston K, Loftus P, Fuchs V. The weaker sex? Vulnerable men and women's resilience to socio-economic disadvantage. SSM Popul Health. 2016; 2:512-524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2016.06.006 PMID: 29349167

24. Taylor SE, Klein LC, Lewis BP, Gruenewald TL, Gurung RA, Updegraff JA: Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychol Rev. 2000; 107:411-429. PMID: 10941275

25. Houweling TA, Kunst AE, Huisman M, Mackenbach JP. Using relative and absolute measures for monitoring health inequalities: experiences from cross-national analyses on maternal and child health. Int J Equity Health. 2007; 6:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-6-15 PMID: 17967166

26. Keppel K, Pamuk E, Lynch J, Carter-Pokras O, Kim Insun, Mays V, et al. Methodological issues in measuring health disparities. Vital Health Stat 2. 2005; 141:1-16.

27. Singh-Manoux A, Clarke P, Marmot M. Multiple measures of socio-economic position and psychosocial health: proximal and distal measures. Int J Epidemiol. 2002; 31(6):1192-1199; discussion 1199-1200. PMID: 12540721

28. Préteceille E. La division sociale de l'espace francilien. Observatoire Sociologique du Changement—Sciences Po & CNRS. 2003. https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00130291/document. Cited 3 June 2018.

29. Salmon CT, Nichols JS. The Next-Birthday Method of Respondent Selection. Public Opin Q. 1983; 47 (2):270-276.

30. O'Rourke D, Blair J. Improving Random Respondent Selection in Telephone Surveys. J Mark Res. 1983; 20(4):428-432.

31. Rondet C, Lapostolle A, Soler M, Grillo F, Parizot I, Chauvin P. Are Immigrants and Nationals Born to Immigrants at Higher Risk for Delayed or No Lifetime Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening? The Results from a Population-Based Survey in Paris Metropolitan Area in 2010. PLoS One. 2014; 9(1): e87046. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087046 PMID: 24466323

32. Martin-Fernandez J, Grillo F, Parizot I, Caillavet F, Chauvin P. Prevalence and socioeconomic and geographical inequalities of household food insecurity in the Paris region, France, 2010. BMC Public Health. 2013; 13:486. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-486 PMID: 23688296

33. Claudot F, Alla F, Fresson J, Calvez T, Coudane H, Bonaïti-Pellié C. Ethics and observational studies in medical research: various rules in a common framework. Int J Epidemiol. 2009; 38:1104-1108. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyp164 PMID: 19336436

34. Pettersson A, Modin S, Wahlström R, af Winklerfelt Hammarberg S, Krakau I. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview is useful and well accepted as part of the clinical assessment for depression
and anxiety in primary care: a mixed-methods study. BMC Fam Pract. 2018; 19(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0674-5 PMID: 29368585

35. Lecrubier Y, Sheehan D, Weiller E, Amorim P, Bonora I, Harnett Sheehan K, et al. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). A short diagnostic structured interview: reliability and validity according to the CIDI. Eur Psychiatry. 1997; 12(5):224-231.

36. Pinninti NR, Madison H, Musser E, Rissmiller D. MINI International Neuropsychiatric Schedule: clinical utility and patient acceptance. Eur Psychiatry. 2003; 18(7):361-364. PMID: 14643565

37. Sheehan D, Lecrubier Y, Harnett Sheehan K, Janavs J, Weiller E, Keskiner A, et al. The validity of the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) according to the SCID-P and its reliability. Eur Psychiatry. 1997; 12(5):232-241.

38. Saunders JB., Aasland OG, Babor TF, de la Fuente JR, Grant M. Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction. 1993; 88(6):791-804. PMID: 8329970

39. Gache P, Michaud P, Landry U, Accietto C, Arfaoui S, Wenger O, et al. The alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) as a screening tool for excessive drinking in primary care: reliability and validity of a French version. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2005; 29:2001-2007. PMID: 16340457

40. Bradley KA, Bush KR, Epler AJ, Dobie DJ, Davis TM, Sporleder JL, et al. Two brief alcohol-screening tests From the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): validation in a female Veterans Affairs patient population. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163(7):821-829. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.163.7.821 PMID: 12695273

41. Mackenbach JP, Kunst AE. Measuring the magnitude of socio-economic inequalities in health: an overview of available measures illustrated with two examples from Europe. Soc Sci Med. 1997; 44(6):757-771. PMID: 9080560

42. Hayes LJ, Berry G. Sampling variability of the Kunst-Mackenbach relative index of inequality. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002; 56(10):762-765. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.56.10.762 PMID: 12239202

43. Cheng NF, Han PZ, Gansky SA. Methods and software for estimating health disparities: the case of children's oral health. Am J Epidemiol. 2008; 168(8):906-914. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn207 PMID: 18779387

44. Boston College Department of Economics. module RIIGEN: Stata module to generate Variables to Compute the Relative Index of Inequality. 2013.

45. Meyer OL, Castro-Schilo L, Aguilar-Gaxiola S. Determinants of mental health and self-rated health: a model of socioeconomic status, neighborhood safety, and physical activity. Am J Public Health. 2014; 104(9):1734-1741. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302003 PMID: 25033151

46. Stewart-Brown S, Samaraweera PC, Taggart F, Kandala NB, Stranges S. Socioeconomic gradients and mental health: implications for public health. Br J Psychiatry. 2015; 206(6):461-465. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.114.147280 PMID: 25792696

47. Mackenbach JP. Health inequalities: Europe in profile. Department of Health, United Kingdom, 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_determinants/socio_economics/documents/ev_060302_rd06_en.pdf. Cited 3 July 2018.

48. Kondo N. Socioeconomic disparities and health: impacts and pathways. J Epidemiol. 2012; 22(1):2-6. https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20110116 PMID: 22156290

49. Laaksonen M, Rahkonen O, Karvonen S, Lahelma E. Socioeconomic status and smoking: analysing inequalities with multiple indicators. Eur J Public Health. 2005; 15(3):262-269. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cki115 PMID: 15755781

50. Back JH, Lee Y. Gender differences in the association between socioeconomic status (SES) and depressive symptoms in older adults. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2011; 52(3):e140-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2010.09.012 PMID: 20947184

51. Thurston RC, Kubzansky LD, Kawachi I, Berkman LF. Is the association between socioeconomic position and coronary heart disease stronger in women than in men? Am J Epidemiol. 2005; 162(1):57-65. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwi159 PMID: 15961587

52. Baek TH, Lee HY, Lim NK, Park HY. Gender differences in the association between socioeconomic status and hypertension incidence: the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES). BMC Public Health. 2015; 15:852. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2175-6 PMID: 26336067

53. Huisman M, Kunst AE, Mackenbach JP. Inequalities in the prevalence of smoking in the European Union: comparing education and income. Prev Med. 2005; 40(6):756-764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.09.022 PMID: 15850876
54. Bloomfield K, Grittner U, Kramer S, Gmel G. Social inequalities in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems in the study countries of the EU concerted action "Gender, Culture and Alcohol Problems: a Multi-national Study". Alcohol Alcohol Oxf Oxfs Suppl. 2006; 41(1):i26-36.

55. Beck F, Richard J-B. La consommation d'alcool en France. Presse Med [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 Jun 17]; http://www.em-consulte.com/en/article/928066

56. Oskrochi G, Bani-Mustafa A, Oskrochi Y. Factors affecting psychological well-being: Evidence from two nationally representative surveys. PLoS One. 2018; 13(6):e0198638. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198638 PMID: 29897963

57. Payton ME, Greenstone MH, Schenker N. Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: What do they mean in terms of statistical significance? J Insect Sci. 2003; 3:34. PMID: 15841249

58. Du Prel JB, Hommel G, Röhrig B, Blettner M. Confidence Interval or P-Value?: Part 4 of a Series on Evaluation of Scientific Publications. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009; 106(19): 335-339. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2009.0335 PMID: 19547734

59. Bollini P, Siem H. No real progress towards equity: Health of migrants and ethnic minorities on the eve of the year 2000. Soc Sci Med. 1995; 41(6):819-828. PMID: 8571153