Danielle L Beatty Moody1, Yuefang Chang, Charlotte Brown, Joyce T Bromberger, Karen A Matthews. 1. From the Department of Psychology (Beatty Moody), University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Maryland; and Departments of Neurosurgery (Chang), Psychiatry (Brown, Bromberger, Matthews), Epidemiology (Bromberger, Matthews), and Psychology (Matthews), University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Everyday discrimination may contribute to incident metabolic syndrome (MetS) in the United States and related racial/ethnic differences in MetS. The study investigated whether everyday discrimination predicted MetS in a diverse sample. METHODS: A longitudinal, cohort study of 2132 women (mean [standard deviation] = 45.8 [2.7] years) who self-reported as black (n = 523), white (n = 1065), Chinese (n = 194), Japanese (n = 227), or Hispanic (n = 123) at baseline drawn from seven cities across the United States was conducted. MetS was defined in accordance with the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. The Everyday Discrimination scale was used to assess exposure to and level of everyday discrimination. RESULTS: Everyday discrimination exposure at baseline predicted a 33% greater incidence of MetS during the 13.89-year (standard deviation = 3.83, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-1.64, p = .001) follow-up in the full sample and was most pronounced in black, Hispanic, and Japanese women. Each 1-point increase in the continuous everyday discrimination score (HR = 1.03, 95% CI =1.01-1.05, p = .001) predicted a 3% greater incidence of MetS and, specifically, blood pressure (HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.00-1.03, p = .04), waist circumference (HR = 1.05, 95% CI =1.03-1.06, p < .001), and triglyceride level (HR = 1.02, 95% CI =1.00-1.04, p = .01). These associations were independent of risk factors including physical activity, socioeconomic status, smoking, and alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Everyday discrimination contributes to poorer metabolic health in midlife women in the United States. These findings have clinical implications for the development of MetS and, ultimately, cardiovascular disease and diabetes, and intervention strategies to reduce these outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: Everyday discrimination may contribute to incident metabolic syndrome (MetS) in the United States and related racial/ethnic differences in MetS. The study investigated whether everyday discrimination predicted MetS in a diverse sample. METHODS: A longitudinal, cohort study of 2132 women (mean [standard deviation] = 45.8 [2.7] years) who self-reported as black (n = 523), white (n = 1065), Chinese (n = 194), Japanese (n = 227), or Hispanic (n = 123) at baseline drawn from seven cities across the United States was conducted. MetS was defined in accordance with the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria. The Everyday Discrimination scale was used to assess exposure to and level of everyday discrimination. RESULTS: Everyday discrimination exposure at baseline predicted a 33% greater incidence of MetS during the 13.89-year (standard deviation = 3.83, hazard ratio (HR) = 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-1.64, p = .001) follow-up in the full sample and was most pronounced in black, Hispanic, and Japanese women. Each 1-point increase in the continuous everyday discrimination score (HR = 1.03, 95% CI =1.01-1.05, p = .001) predicted a 3% greater incidence of MetS and, specifically, blood pressure (HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.00-1.03, p = .04), waist circumference (HR = 1.05, 95% CI =1.03-1.06, p < .001), and triglyceride level (HR = 1.02, 95% CI =1.00-1.04, p = .01). These associations were independent of risk factors including physical activity, socioeconomic status, smoking, and alcohol consumption. CONCLUSIONS: Everyday discrimination contributes to poorer metabolic health in midlife women in the United States. These findings have clinical implications for the development of MetS and, ultimately, cardiovascular disease and diabetes, and intervention strategies to reduce these outcomes.
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: Tené T Lewis; Susan A Everson-Rose; Lynda H Powell; Karen A Matthews; Charlotte Brown; Kelly Karavolos; Kim Sutton-Tyrrell; Elizabeth Jacobs; Deidre Wesley Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2006 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Manuel S Ortiz; Hector F Myers; Christine Dunkel Schetter; Carlos J Rodriguez; Teresa E Seeman Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jennifer R Dusendang; Alexis N Reeves; Carrie A Karvonen-Gutierrez; William H Herman; Kelly R Ylitalo; Siobán D Harlow Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2019-07-27 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: Kevin W Smith; Nancy Krieger; Anna Kosheleva; Matthew Urato; Pamela D Waterman; David R Williams; Dana R Carney; Jarvis T Chen; Gary G Bennett; Elmer Freeman Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 1.847
Authors: Michelle I Cardel; Xiaofei Chi; Yuan-I Min; Mario Sims; Solomon K Musani; Akilah Dulin; Clarence C Gravlee; Steven M Smith; Mark D DeBoer; Matthew J Gurka Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2021-03-20
Authors: Elissa S Epel; Alexandra D Crosswell; Stefanie E Mayer; Aric A Prather; George M Slavich; Eli Puterman; Wendy Berry Mendes Journal: Front Neuroendocrinol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 8.606
Authors: Danielle L Beatty Moody; Yue-Fang Chang; Elizabeth J Pantesco; Taylor M Darden; Tené T Lewis; Charlotte Brown; Joyce T Bromberger; Karen A Matthews Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2019-06-04
Authors: Laura B Zahodne; Neika Sharifian; A Zarina Kraal; Afsara B Zaheed; Ketlyne Sol; Emily P Morris; Nicole Schupf; Jennifer J Manly; Adam M Brickman Journal: Neuropsychology Date: 2021-03 Impact factor: 3.295