Kelly M Harrington1, Xuan-Mai T Nguyen2, Rebecca J Song3, Keri Hannagan4, Rachel Quaden4, David R Gagnon5, Kelly Cho2, Jennifer E Deen6, Sumitra Muralidhar6, Timothy J O'Leary7, John Michael Gaziano2, Stacey B Whitbourne2. 1. Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: kelly.harrington@va.gov. 2. Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Medicine, Division of Aging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Epidemiology, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center (MAVERIC), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Office of Research and Development, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, District of Columbia. 7. Office of Research and Development, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; Department of Pathology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program (MVP) is the largest ongoing cohort program of its kind, with 654,903 enrollees as of June 2018. The objectives of this study were to examine gender differences in the MVP cohort with respect to response and enrollment rates; demographic, health, and health care characteristics; and prevalence of self-reported health conditions. METHODS: The MVP Baseline Survey was completed by 415,694 veterans (8% women), providing self-report measures of demographic characteristics, health status, and medical history. RESULTS: Relative to men, women demonstrated a higher positive responder rate (23.0% vs. 16.0%), slightly higher enrollment rate (13.5% vs. 12.9%), and, among enrollees, a lower survey completion rate (59.7% vs. 63.8%). Women were younger, more racially diverse, had higher educational attainment, and were less likely to be married or cohabitating with a partner than men. Women were more likely to report good to excellent health status but poorer physical fitness, and less likely to report lifetime smoking and drinking than men. Compared with men, women veterans showed an increased prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions, thyroid problems, gastrointestinal conditions, migraine headaches, and mental health disorders, as well as a decreased prevalence of gout, cardiovascular diseases, high cholesterol, diabetes, and hearing problems. CONCLUSIONS: These results revealed some substantial gender differences in the research participation rates, demographic profile, health characteristics, and prevalence of health conditions for veterans in the MVP cohort. Findings highlight the need for tailoring recruitment efforts to ensure representation of the increasing women veteran population receiving care through the Veterans Health Administration. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: The Department of Veterans Affairs Million Veteran Program (MVP) is the largest ongoing cohort program of its kind, with 654,903 enrollees as of June 2018. The objectives of this study were to examine gender differences in the MVP cohort with respect to response and enrollment rates; demographic, health, and health care characteristics; and prevalence of self-reported health conditions. METHODS: The MVP Baseline Survey was completed by 415,694 veterans (8% women), providing self-report measures of demographic characteristics, health status, and medical history. RESULTS: Relative to men, women demonstrated a higher positive responder rate (23.0% vs. 16.0%), slightly higher enrollment rate (13.5% vs. 12.9%), and, among enrollees, a lower survey completion rate (59.7% vs. 63.8%). Women were younger, more racially diverse, had higher educational attainment, and were less likely to be married or cohabitating with a partner than men. Women were more likely to report good to excellent health status but poorer physical fitness, and less likely to report lifetime smoking and drinking than men. Compared with men, women veterans showed an increased prevalence of musculoskeletal conditions, thyroid problems, gastrointestinal conditions, migraine headaches, and mental health disorders, as well as a decreased prevalence of gout, cardiovascular diseases, high cholesterol, diabetes, and hearing problems. CONCLUSIONS: These results revealed some substantial gender differences in the research participation rates, demographic profile, health characteristics, and prevalence of health conditions for veterans in the MVP cohort. Findings highlight the need for tailoring recruitment efforts to ensure representation of the increasing women veteran population receiving care through the Veterans Health Administration. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Maureen Murdoch; Arlene Bradley; Susan H Mather; Robert E Klein; Carole L Turner; Elizabeth M Yano Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rachel Kimerling; Lori A Bastian; Bevanne A Bean-Mayberry; Meggan M Bucossi; Diane V Carney; Karen M Goldstein; Ciaran S Phibbs; Alyssa Pomernacki; Anne G Sadler; Elizabeth M Yano; Susan M Frayne Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Diana M Higgins; Brenda T Fenton; Mary A Driscoll; Alicia A Heapy; Robert D Kerns; Matthew J Bair; Constance Carroll; Penny L Brennan; Diana J Burgess; John D Piette; Sally G Haskell; Cynthia A Brandt; Joseph L Goulet Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2017-03-18
Authors: Joel R Grossbard; Keren Lehavot; Katherine D Hoerster; Matthew Jakupcak; Karen H Seal; Tracy L Simpson Journal: Psychiatr Serv Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.084
Authors: Karen M Goldstein; Eugene Z Oddone; Lori A Bastian; Maren K Olsen; Bryan C Batch; Donna L Washington Journal: Womens Health Issues Date: 2017-09-08
Authors: Blair E Wisco; Brian P Marx; Erika J Wolf; Mark W Miller; Steven M Southwick; Robert H Pietrzak Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.906
Authors: Elisheva R Danan; Erin E Krebs; Kristine Ensrud; Eva Koeller; Roderick MacDonald; Tina Velasquez; Nancy Greer; Timothy J Wilt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Stacey B Whitbourne; Xuan-Mai T Nguyen; Rebecca J Song; Emily Lord; Michelle Lyden; Kelly M Harrington; Rachel Ward; Yanping Li; Jessica V V Brewer; Kelly M Cho; Luc Djousse; Sumitra Muralidhar; Philip S Tsao; J Michael Gaziano; Juan P Casas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Rachel E Ward; Xuan-Mai T Nguyen; Yanping Li; Emily M Lord; Vanessa Lecky; Rebecca J Song; Juan P Casas; Kelly Cho; John Michael Gaziano; Kelly M Harrington; Stacey B Whitbourne Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Daniel F Levey; Murray B Stein; Frank R Wendt; Gita A Pathak; Hang Zhou; Mihaela Aslan; Rachel Quaden; Kelly M Harrington; Yaira Z Nuñez; Cassie Overstreet; Krishnan Radhakrishnan; Gerard Sanacora; Andrew M McIntosh; Jingchunzi Shi; Suyash S Shringarpure; John Concato; Renato Polimanti; Joel Gelernter Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 28.771