Poor diet may represent one pathway through which lower socioeconomic position (SEP) leads to adverse health outcomes. This study examined the associations between SEP and diet quality, its components, energy, and nutrients in a nationally representative sample of Australians. Dietary data from two 24-h recalls collected during the cross-sectional Australian Health Survey 2011-13 (n = 4875; aged ≥ 19 years) were analysed. Diet quality was evaluated using the Dietary Guidelines Index (DGI). SEP was assessed by index of area-level socioeconomic disadvantage, education level, and household income. Linear regression analyses investigated the associations between measures of SEP and dietary intakes. Across all of the SEP indicators, compared with the least disadvantaged group, the most disadvantaged group had 2.5–4.5 units lower DGI. A greater area-level disadvantage was associated with higher carbohydrate and total sugars intake. Lower education was associated with higher trans fat, carbohydrate, and total sugars intake and lower poly-unsaturated fat and fibre intake. Lower income was associated with lower total energy and protein intake and higher carbohydrate and trans fat intake. Lower SEP was generally associated with poorer diet quality and nutrient intakes, highlighting dietary inequities among Australian adults, and a need to develop policy that addresses these inequities.

As currently conceived, precision public health is at risk of becoming precision medicine at a population level. This paper outlines a framework for precision public health that, in contrast to its current operationalisation, is consistent with public health principles because it integrates factors at all levels, while illuminating social position as a fundamental determinant of health and health inequities. We review conceptual foundations of public health, outline a proposed framework for precision public health and describe its operationalisation within research and practice. Social position shapes individuals’ unequal experiences of the social determinants of health. Thus, in our formulation, precision public health investigates how multiple dimensions of social position interact to confer health risk differently for precisely defined population subgroups according to the social contexts in which they are embedded, while considering relevant biological and behavioural factors. It leverages this information to uncover the precise and intersecting social structures that pattern health outcomes, and to identify actionable interventions within the social contexts of affected groups. We contend that studies informed by this framework offer greater potential to improve health than current conceptualisations of precision public health that do not address root causes. Moreover, expanding beyond master categories of social position and operationalising these categories in more precise ways across time and place can enrich public health research through greater attention to the heterogeneity of social positions, their causes and health effects, leading to the identification of points of intervention that are specific enough to be useful in reducing health inequities. Failure to attend to this level of particularity may mask the true nature of health risk, the causal mechanisms at play and appropriate interventions. Conceptualised thus, precision public health is a research endeavour with much to offer by way of understanding and intervening on the causes of poor health and health inequities. As currently conceived, precision public health is at risk of becoming precision medicine at a population level. This paper outlines a framework for precision public health that, in contrast to its current operationalization, is consistent with public health principles because it integrates factors at all levels, while illuminating social position as a fundamental determinant of health and health inequities. We review conceptual foundations of public health, outline a proposed framework for precision public health and describe its operationalization within research and practice. Social position shapes individuals’ unequal experiences of the social determinants of health. Thus, in our formulation, precision public health investigates how multiple dimensions of social position interact to confer health risk differently for precisely defined population subgroups according to the social contexts in which they are embedded, while considering relevant biological and behavioural factors. It leverages this information to uncover the precise and intersecting social structures that pattern health outcomes, and to identify actionable interventions within the social contexts of affected groups. We contend that studies informed by this framework offer greater potential to improve health than current conceptualizations of precision public health that do not address root causes. Moreover, expanding beyond master categories of social position and operationalizing these categories in more precise ways across time and place can enrich public health research through greater attention to the heterogeneity of social positions, their causes and health effects, leading to identification of points of intervention that are specific enough to be useful in reducing health inequities. Failure to attend to this level of particularity may mask the true nature of health risk, the causal mechanisms at play and appropriate interventions. Conceptualized thus, precision public health is a research endeavour with much to offer by way of understanding and intervening on the causes of poor health and health inequities.

Background: Emerging evidence shows sedentary behaviour may be associated with mental health outcomes. Yet, the strength of the evidence linking sedentary behaviour and stress is still unclear. This study aimed to synthesise evidence regarding associations between time spent in sedentary behaviour and stress in adults. Methods: A systematic search was conducted (January 1990 – September 2019). Following PRISMA guidelines, an evaluation of methodological quality, and best-evidence synthesis of associations between time in sedentary behaviour (including sitting time, TV viewing, computer use) and stress were presented. Twenty-six studies reporting on data from n = 72,795 people (age 18-98y, 62.7% women) were included. Results: Across the studies (n = 2 strong-, n = 10 moderate- and n = 14 weak-quality), there was insufficient evidence that overall time spent in sedentary behaviour and sitting time were associated with stress, particularly when using self-report measures of sedentary behaviour or stress. There was strong evidence of no association between TV viewing, or computer use and stress. Amongst studies using objective measures of sedentary behaviour and/or stress there was also strong evidence of no association. Conclusion: Although previous research suggested sedentary behaviour may be linked to mental health outcomes such as depression and anxiety, the evidence for an association between various types of sedentary behaviour and stress is limited in quality, and associations are either inconsistent or null. High-quality longitudinal/interventional research is required to confirm findings and determine the direction of associations between different contexts (i.e. purpose) and domains (i.e. leisure, occupational, transport) of sedentary behaviour and stress.