Social factors and increase in mortality in Russia in the 1990s: prospective
cohort study
S L Plavinski, dean1, S I
Plavinskaya, leading researcher2, A N Klimov,
principal researcher2
1 College of Public Health, Medical Academy for
Postgraduate Studies, Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2 Department of
Biochemistry, Institute for Experimental Medicine, Saint Petersburg, Russia
Objective To determine the association between social factors
and the increase in mortality in Russia in the 1990s.
Design Prospective population cohort study.
Setting Saint Petersburg, Russia.
Participants Two cohorts of men aged 40-59 years randomly selectedfrom district voting list: 3907 screened in 1975-7 and 1467in
1986-8.
Main outcome measures Education, various health related measures,alcohol intake. Mortality in subsequent 10 years.
Results There was no recorded increase in mortality in men withuniversity degrees. The relative risk in the second cohort
compared with the first was 0.92 (95% confidence interval 0.67to
1.24). For participants with only high school educationit was
significantly higher in the second cohort (1.32, 1.02to 1.71). The
most pronounced differences were found among participants with the lowest level
of education, in which therelative risk was 1.75 (1.44 to 2.12). The
same pattern heldfor coronary vascular disease and cancer mortality.
Conclusion In Russia men in the lower socioeconomic groups weremost affected by the sharp increases in mortality in the 1990s.
The rapid increase in mortality in Russia in the 1990s was a
development previously not reported in any economically developed
country. For men life expectancy decreased from about 64 yearsin
1990 to 59 years in 1993.1 There is still
controversy asto who suffered most from concurrent economic
breakdown. Severallarge prospective studies on mortality from
ischaemic heartdisease in Russia offer a unique opportunity to
identify subpopulationsthat were more affected.
The study sample comprised two cohorts of men living in the
Petrogradsky district of Leningrad (now Saint Petersburg).The first
cohort was 5000 randomly selected men from the 1974voting list who
were born from 1916 to 1935. The response ratewas 78% (3907 men were
screened). The second cohort was selectedfrom the 1985 voting list
(men born from 1927 to 1946). In total1000 men aged 40-49 and 1000
aged 50-59 were randomly selectedfor screening. The response rate
was 71% for 40-49 year oldsand 76% for 50-59 year olds (total 1467
men screened). Thescreening procedure has been described in detail
elsewhere24 and was the same
for the two groups.
The follow up study began in January 1979. If the state registrationorgan (ZAGS) indicated that participants were no longer registeredat the designated addresses we tried to contact them if they
had moved away or contacted their relatives or neighbours ifthey had
died. Overall loss to follow up was 3%. In the secondcohort we were
unable to get data for 15 men who had died.
The first cohort was followed up for a mean of 18.1 years, and
there were 1890 deaths. The second cohort was followed up fora mean
of 11.2 years, and there were 323 deaths. The firstday of follow up
was the day the last participant from thiscohort was screened: 6
July 1977 for the first cohort and 21August 1988 for the second
cohort (see webextra figure). Wehave presented data for the first 10
years of follow up.
We used Kaplan-Meier survival curves and calculated relativerisks
and confidence intervals from person time data. We usedthe exact
Poisson method to calculate confidence intervals.5
Statistical analysis was performed with SAS system, version6.12 for
Windows (SAS Institutes, Cary, NC).
The two groups screened closely resembled each other in termsof age,
place of residence, structure, behavioural risk factors,and
biological indicators (table 1). The number of people with
education less than high school decreased because the secondcohort
included only those born after the Bolshevik revolution,when high
school education became mandatory.
Table 1 General
characteristic of two screened groups of men. Figures
are means (SD) unless stated otherwise
Table 2 and the figure show our main
results. Among participantswith university education all cause
mortality in both cohortswas almost the same: 12.8 per 1000 person
years of observationfor the first cohort and 11.7 for the second
(relative risk0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.24). Mortality
amongmen with only high school education was the same in both
cohortsfor the first six years of follow up (figure),
but then divergedand at the end of follow up was significantly
higher in thesecond cohort (1.32, 1.02 to 1.71). The largest
differenceswere in men with the least education (less than high
school).All cause mortality was higher almost from the beginning ofthe follow up, steadily rising with time and reaching 48.6 per
1000 person years for the second cohort at the end of followup. Ten
years before it was 43% lower (27.8 per 1000 personyears; 1.75, 1.44
to 2.12). The increase in mortality has beennoted for cardiovascular
disease and cancer, though it wasnot significant for coronary heart
disease. Increases in mortalityfrom cardiovascular disease and
cancer were highest among menwith the least education (1.99, 1.49 to
2.63; and 1.78, 1.20to 2.58, respectively). Surprisingly, there was
no significantincrease in the rate of accidental/violent deaths.
All cause mortality among
two cohorts according to level of education (group 1
screened in 1975-7, group 2 screened in 1986-8)
What
is already known on this topic
In the mid-1990s the formerSoviet Union
experienced unprecedented increases in mortalityespecially among men of working age and in the
urban population
Increasein mortality associated with
lower educational attainment hasbeen noted
in Russia
What this study adds
The increase inmortality in Russia did
not affect all social groups equally
Thegreatest increases were among those
with the least education
Alcoholconsumption may account for some
but not all of this increase
We divided participants into two groups: those who drank morethan
150 g of alcohol during the week before screening andthose who drank
less. In both groups mortality increased inthe 1990s (see webextra
table A). This increase was more pronouncedthan the increase in
mortality associated with increased alcoholconsumption within each
cohort. Among men with the least education,mortality in the 1990s
increased 60-80% compared with 8-22%increase associated with
increased alcohol consumption (therelative risk for alcohol related
mortality was 1.27, 1.02to 1.57, in the first cohort and 1.08, 0.73
to 1.57, in thesecond cohort).
In 1980 the Black report first presented evidence to show thelinks
between the socioeconomic environment and health andwellbeing.6 In the United Kingdom between 1976-81 and 1986-92the mortality gap between socioeconomic classes I and II and
classes IV and V increased.7 The higher mortality
among peoplewith little education has also been well documented in
Russianepidemiological studies.38
Our data show that the increase in mortality in the mid-1990s
disproportionately affected men with low education, with anincrease
of almost 75% from the level of the mid-1980s. Thereason why social
changes have struck mostly the least educatedcould be that for those
sectors of society, breakdown of thesocialist state could engender a
sense of catastrophe.9 Themediator
between stress and mortality could be alcohol. Russianmen commonly
use alcohol because it "helps them to forget everydaycares and
difficulties."10 Also alcohol related problems
weremore common among the less educated respondents. However, ouranalysis shows that the increase in mortality in Russia was
socially determined, and though alcohol may play a part in this
process it is not the sole factor.
A figure showing
details of recruitmentand follow up and a table showing alcohol
intake can be foundon bmj.com
We thank all those who participated in data collection and
followup of participants: G Ilyina, A Katrushenko, V Khoptiar, IKlenina, V Konstantinov, B Lipovetsky, E Magracheva, T Maslova,
G Mirer, N Muchina, N Nikulcheva, N Parfenova, D Shestov, Y
Slepenkov, V Tryufanov, L Vassilieva, N Zhukovskaya.
Contributors: SLP proposed the initial hypotheses, analysedthe data. and wrote the paper. SIP participated in data collectionand analysis, provided expert knowledge of the mortality classificationand determinants of mortality, and provided ideas for study
execution and analysis. ANK conceived the study, supervisedand
directed data collection, and is guarantor. All authorscommented on
the paper. ANK was the principal investigator inthe larger project
of which this study is part.
Funding: Cohort study was funded partially by NIH grants
NO-1HR12243-L/HR/NHLBI,NO-1HV08112/HV/NHLBI and by the Soviet (then
Russian) Academyof Medical Sciences. The guarantor accepts full
responsibilityfor the conduct of the study, had access to the data,
and controlledthe decision to publish.
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethical approval: The USSR Lipid Research Clinics cohort studyhas been carried out under a government-to-government agreement
between the United States and the Union of Soviet SocialistRepublics
on a joint programme in cardiovascular diseases,signed in 1972.
Shkolnikov V. The Russian health crisis of the 1990s in
mortality dimensions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Center for Population and
Development Studies, 1997 (Working Paper Series No 97.01).
Lipid Research Clinics Population Studies Data Book. Vol III.
The USSR first prevalence study. Bethesda: National Institutes of
Health, 1986 (NIH Publication No 87-2727).
Klimov AN, ed. Epidemiology and risk factors of ischemic
heart disease [In Russian]. Leningrad: Medicine, 1989.
Plavinskaya SI. The role of risk factors in the prognosis
of CHD in the male or female population of a big industrial city
[dissertation in Russian]. Saint Petersburg: Institute for Experimental
Medicine, 1993.
Sahai H, Khurshid A. Statistics in epidemiology. Boca
Raton: CRC Press, 1996.
Black D, Morris J, Smith C, Townsend P. Inequalities in
health: report of a working group. London: DHSS, 1980.
Acheson D. Independent inquiry into inequalities in
health, report of the scientific advisory group. London: Stationery
Office, 1998.
Dennis B, Zhukovsky G, Shestov D, Davis C, Deev A, Kim H, et
al. The association of education with coronary heart disease mortality in
the USSR Lipid Research Clinics Study. Int J Epidemiol 1993;22:
420-7.[Abstract]
Simpura J, Eremitcheva G, Evdokimova E, Mannila S, Nosova T,
Pakkasvirta T, et al. No limits to patience? Experience of the Russian
economic crisis of 1998 in the everyday lives of the middle-class families
in St. Petersburg. Idantutkimus 1999;2: 49-68.
Palosuo H, Uutel A, Zhuravleva I, Lakomova N. Observations
on the use of alcohol in Helsinki and Moscow in 1991. In: Simpura J, Levin
B, eds. Demystifying Russian drinking. Saarijarvi: STAKES, 1997:
149-74.
DISCLAIMER: All
information, data, and material contained, presented, or provided here is for
general information purposes only and is not to be construed as reflecting the
knowledge or opinions of the publisher, and is not to be construed or intended
as providing medical or legal advice. The decision whether or not to vaccinate
is an important and complex issue and should be made by you, and you alone, in
consultation with your health care provider.
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth."
-- Albert Einstein, letter to a friend, 1901
"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William C. Jarvis, September 28, 1820
"What's the point of vaccination if it doesn't protect you from the unvaccinated?"
-- Sandy Gottstein
"Who gets to decide what the greater good is and how many will be sacrificed to it?"