M Maya McDoom1, Priya Palta2, Priya Vart1, Stephen P Juraschek3, Anna Kucharska-Newton2, Ana V Diez Roux4, Josef Coresh1. 1. Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 3. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between individual and area-level socioeconomic status and hypertension risk among individuals later in life. METHODS: We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association of socioeconomic status with incident hypertension using race-specific neighborhood socioeconomic status, median household income, and education among 3372 participants (mean age, 61 years) from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study at Visit 4 (1996-1998). Incident hypertension was defined as self-reported diagnosis or reported use of antihypertensive medications. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up time of 9.4 years, there were 1874 new cases of hypertension (62.1 per 1000 person-years). Overall, being in high as compared with low socioeconomic status categories was associated with a lower risk of developing hypertension in late life, with hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 0.87 (0.77-0.98) for high neighborhood socioeconomic status tertile, 0.79 (0.69-0.90) for high individual income, and 0.75 (0.63-0.89) for college education after adjustment for traditional risk factors. These findings were consistent and robust whenever accounting for competing risks of all-cause mortality. No significant interactions by race and age (dichotomized at age 65) were observed. CONCLUSION: Among participants free of hypertension in midlife, high neighborhood and individual socioeconomic status are associated with a decreased risk of incident hypertension. Our findings support population-level interventions, such as blood pressure screening at senior centers and faith-based organizations, that are tailored to shift the distribution of blood pressure and reduce hypertension health inequalities among older adults.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between individual and area-level socioeconomic status and hypertension risk among individuals later in life. METHODS: We used Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association of socioeconomic status with incident hypertension using race-specific neighborhood socioeconomic status, median household income, and education among 3372 participants (mean age, 61 years) from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study at Visit 4 (1996-1998). Incident hypertension was defined as self-reported diagnosis or reported use of antihypertensive medications. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up time of 9.4 years, there were 1874 new cases of hypertension (62.1 per 1000 person-years). Overall, being in high as compared with low socioeconomic status categories was associated with a lower risk of developing hypertension in late life, with hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 0.87 (0.77-0.98) for high neighborhood socioeconomic status tertile, 0.79 (0.69-0.90) for high individual income, and 0.75 (0.63-0.89) for college education after adjustment for traditional risk factors. These findings were consistent and robust whenever accounting for competing risks of all-cause mortality. No significant interactions by race and age (dichotomized at age 65) were observed. CONCLUSION: Among participants free of hypertension in midlife, high neighborhood and individual socioeconomic status are associated with a decreased risk of incident hypertension. Our findings support population-level interventions, such as blood pressure screening at senior centers and faith-based organizations, that are tailored to shift the distribution of blood pressure and reduce hypertension health inequalities among older adults.
Authors: Sherman A James; John Van Hoewyk; Robert F Belli; David S Strogatz; David R Williams; Trevillore E Raghunathan Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2006-03-29 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Donna K Arnett; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Sarah de Ferranti; Jean-Pierre Després; Heather J Fullerton; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Rachel H Mackey; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Paul Muntner; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Carlos J Rodriguez; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Joshua Z Willey; Daniel Woo; Robert W Yeh; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Paul Muntner; Robert M Carey; Samuel Gidding; Daniel W Jones; Sandra J Taler; Jackson T Wright; Paul K Whelton Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Ramachandran S Vasan; Alexa Beiser; Sudha Seshadri; Martin G Larson; William B Kannel; Ralph B D'Agostino; Daniel Levy Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-02-27 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: Hypertension Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Xiao Xu; Jersey Liang; Joan M Bennett; Anda Botoseneanu; Heather G Allore Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2014-08-26 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Jeffrey D Morenoff; James S House; Ben B Hansen; David R Williams; George A Kaplan; Haslyn E Hunte Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Jing Xu; Kaitlyn G Lawrence; Katie M O'Brien; Chandra L Jackson; Dale P Sandler Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 3.710