OBJECTIVE: We assessed associations between discrimination and health-related quality of life among black and white men and women in the United States. METHODS: We examined data from the National Health Measurement Study, a nationally representative sample of 3,648 adults aged 35-89 in the non-institutionalized US population. These data include self-reported lifetime and everyday discrimination as well as several health utility indexes (EQ-5D, HUI3, and SF-6D). Multiple regression was used to compute mean health utility scores adjusted for age, income, education, and chronic diseases for each race-by-gender subgroup. RESULTS: Black men and women reported more discrimination compared to white men and women. Health utility tended to be worse as reported discrimination increased. With a few exceptions, differences between mean health utility scores in the lowest and highest discrimination groups exceeded the 0.03 difference generally considered to be a clinically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Persons who experienced discrimination tended to score lower on health utility measures. The study also revealed a complex relationship between experiences of discrimination and race and gender. Because of these differential social and demographic relationships caution is urged when interpreting self-rated health measures in research, clinical, and policy settings.
OBJECTIVE: We assessed associations between discrimination and health-related quality of life among black and white men and women in the United States. METHODS: We examined data from the National Health Measurement Study, a nationally representative sample of 3,648 adults aged 35-89 in the non-institutionalized US population. These data include self-reported lifetime and everyday discrimination as well as several health utility indexes (EQ-5D, HUI3, and SF-6D). Multiple regression was used to compute mean health utility scores adjusted for age, income, education, and chronic diseases for each race-by-gender subgroup. RESULTS: Black men and women reported more discrimination compared to white men and women. Health utility tended to be worse as reported discrimination increased. With a few exceptions, differences between mean health utility scores in the lowest and highest discrimination groups exceeded the 0.03 difference generally considered to be a clinically significant difference. CONCLUSIONS:Persons who experienced discrimination tended to score lower on health utility measures. The study also revealed a complex relationship between experiences of discrimination and race and gender. Because of these differential social and demographic relationships caution is urged when interpreting self-rated health measures in research, clinical, and policy settings.
Authors: Amy J Schulz; Clarence C Gravlee; David R Williams; Barbara A Israel; Graciela Mentz; Zachary Rowe Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-05-30 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Dennis G Fryback; Nancy Cross Dunham; Mari Palta; Janel Hanmer; Jennifer Buechner; Dasha Cherepanov; Shani A Herrington; Ron D Hays; Robert M Kaplan; Theodore G Ganiats; David Feeny; Paul Kind Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Sheryl L Coley; Carlos F Mendes de Leon; Earlise C Ward; Lisa L Barnes; Kimberly A Skarupski; Elizabeth A Jacobs Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ersilia M DeFilippis; Melvin Echols; Philip B Adamson; Wayne B Batchelor; Lauren B Cooper; Lawton S Cooper; Patrice Desvigne-Nickens; Richard T George; Nasrien E Ibrahim; Mariell Jessup; Dalane W Kitzman; Eric S Leifer; Martin Mendoza; Ileana L Piña; Mitchell Psotka; Fortunato Fred Senatore; Kenneth M Stein; John R Teerlink; Clyde W Yancy; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Mona Fiuzat; Christopher M O'Connor; Orly Vardeny; Muthiah Vaduganathan Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 30.154
Authors: Mohsen Bazargan; James L Smith; Paul Robinson; John Uyanne; Ruqayyah Abdulrahoof; Chika Chuku; Shervin Assari Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 3.390