Nancy Krieger1, Anna Kosheleva2, Pamela D Waterman2, Jarvis T Chen2, Jason Beckfield2, Mathew V Kiang2. 1. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA and Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA nkrieger@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA and Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Debates exist over whether health inequities are bound to rise as population health improves, due to health improving more quickly among the better off, with most analyses focused on mortality data. METHODS: We analysed 50 years of socioeconomic inequities in measured health status among US-born Black and White Americans, using data from the National Health Examination Surveys (NHES) I-III (1959-70), National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) I-III (1971-94) and NHANES 1999-2008. RESULTS: Absolute US socioeconomic health inequities for income percentile and education variously decreased (serum cholesterol; childhood height), stagnated [systolic blood pressure (SBP)], widened [body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC)] and in some cases reversed (age at menarche), even as on-average values rose (BMI, WC), idled (childhood height) and fell (SBP, serum cholesterol, age at menarche), with patterns often varying by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic measure; similar results occurred for relative inequities. For example, for WC, the adverse 20th (low) vs 80th (high) income percentile gap increased only among Whites (NHES I: 0.71 cm [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74, 2.16); NHANES 2005-08: 2.10 (95% CI 0.96, 3.62)]. By contrast, age at menarche for girls in the 20th vs 80th income percentile among Black girls remained consistently lower, by 0.34 years (95% CI 0.12, 0.55) whereas among White girls the initial null difference became inverse [NHANES 2005-08: -0.49 years (95% CI -0.86, -0.12; overall P = 0.0015)]. Adjusting for socioeconomic position only modestly altered Black/White health inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Health inequities need not rise as population health improves.
BACKGROUND: Debates exist over whether health inequities are bound to rise as population health improves, due to health improving more quickly among the better off, with most analyses focused on mortality data. METHODS: We analysed 50 years of socioeconomic inequities in measured health status among US-born Black and White Americans, using data from the National Health Examination Surveys (NHES) I-III (1959-70), National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) I-III (1971-94) and NHANES 1999-2008. RESULTS: Absolute US socioeconomic health inequities for income percentile and education variously decreased (serum cholesterol; childhood height), stagnated [systolic blood pressure (SBP)], widened [body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC)] and in some cases reversed (age at menarche), even as on-average values rose (BMI, WC), idled (childhood height) and fell (SBP, serum cholesterol, age at menarche), with patterns often varying by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic measure; similar results occurred for relative inequities. For example, for WC, the adverse 20th (low) vs 80th (high) income percentile gap increased only among Whites (NHES I: 0.71 cm [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.74, 2.16); NHANES 2005-08: 2.10 (95% CI 0.96, 3.62)]. By contrast, age at menarche for girls in the 20th vs 80th income percentile among Black girls remained consistently lower, by 0.34 years (95% CI 0.12, 0.55) whereas among White girls the initial null difference became inverse [NHANES 2005-08: -0.49 years (95% CI -0.86, -0.12; overall P = 0.0015)]. Adjusting for socioeconomic position only modestly altered Black/White health inequities. CONCLUSIONS: Health inequities need not rise as population health improves.
Keywords:
National Health Examination Survey (NHES) - US; National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) - US; Social inequalities in health; race/ethnicity; secular trend; socioeconomic
Authors: Margaret D Carroll; David A Lacher; Paul D Sorlie; James I Cleeman; David J Gordon; Michael Wolz; Scott M Grundy; Clifford L Johnson Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-10-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: V L Burt; J A Cutler; M Higgins; M J Horan; D Labarthe; P Whelton; C Brown; E J Roccella Journal: Hypertension Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Antonio Fernando Boing; Alexandra Crispim Boing; Jack Cordes; Rockli Kim; S V Subramanian Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jennifer E DeVoe; Andrew W Bazemore; Erika K Cottrell; Sonja Likumahuwa-Ackman; Jené Grandmont; Natalie Spach; Rachel Gold Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Lisa G Rosas; Catherine Nasrallah; Van Ta Park; Jan J Vasquez; Ysabel Duron; Owen Garrick; Riccesha Hattin; Mildred Cho; Sean P David; Jill Evans; Rhonda McClinton-Brown; Christopher Martin Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 1.847