OBJECTIVES: We examined racial/ethnic differences in the seroprevalence of selected infectious agents in analyses stratified according to risk categories to identify patterns and to determine whether demographic, socioeconomic, and behavioral characteristics explain these differences. METHODS: We analyzed data from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, comparing differences among groups in regard to the prevalence of infection with hepatitis A, B, and C viruses, Toxoplasma gondii, Helicobacter pylori, and herpes simplex virus type 2. RESULTS: Racial/ethnic differences were greater among those in the low-risk category. In the case of most infectious agents, odds associated with race/ethnicity were almost 2 times greater in that category than in the high-risk category. CONCLUSIONS: Stratification and adjustment for socioeconomic factors reduced or eliminated racial/ethnic differences in the prevalence of infection in the high-risk but not the low-risk group, wherein race/ethnicity remained significant and might have been a surrogate for unmeasured risk factors.
OBJECTIVES: We examined racial/ethnic differences in the seroprevalence of selected infectious agents in analyses stratified according to risk categories to identify patterns and to determine whether demographic, socioeconomic, and behavioral characteristics explain these differences. METHODS: We analyzed data from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, comparing differences among groups in regard to the prevalence of infection with hepatitis A, B, and C viruses, Toxoplasma gondii, Helicobacter pylori, and herpes simplex virus type 2. RESULTS: Racial/ethnic differences were greater among those in the low-risk category. In the case of most infectious agents, odds associated with race/ethnicity were almost 2 times greater in that category than in the high-risk category. CONCLUSIONS: Stratification and adjustment for socioeconomic factors reduced or eliminated racial/ethnic differences in the prevalence of infection in the high-risk but not the low-risk group, wherein race/ethnicity remained significant and might have been a surrogate for unmeasured risk factors.
Authors: D T Fleming; G M McQuillan; R E Johnson; A J Nahmias; S O Aral; F K Lee; M E St Louis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-10-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G M McQuillan; P J Coleman; D Kruszon-Moran; L A Moyer; S B Lambert; H S Margolis Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Rohina Rubicz; Charles T Leach; Ellen Kraig; Nikhil V Dhurandhar; Ravindranath Duggirala; John Blangero; Robert Yolken; Harald H H Göring Journal: Hum Hered Date: 2011-10-11 Impact factor: 0.444
Authors: Lindsay M Morton; Sophia S Wang; Susan S Devesa; Patricia Hartge; Dennis D Weisenburger; Martha S Linet Journal: Blood Date: 2005-09-08 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: A Blythe Ryerson; Christie R Eheman; Sean F Altekruse; John W Ward; Ahmedin Jemal; Recinda L Sherman; S Jane Henley; Deborah Holtzman; Andrew Lake; Anne-Michelle Noone; Robert N Anderson; Jiemin Ma; Kathleen N Ly; Kathleen A Cronin; Lynne Penberthy; Betsy A Kohler Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-03-09 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Manal M Hassan; Donghui Li; Adel S El-Deeb; Robert A Wolff; Melissa L Bondy; Marta Davila; James L Abbruzzese Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544