Literature DB >> 9624022

Socioeconomic factors, health behaviors, and mortality: results from a nationally representative prospective study of US adults.

P M Lantz1, J S House, J M Lepkowski, D R Williams, R P Mero, J Chen.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: A prominent hypothesis regarding social inequalities in mortality is that the elevated risk among the socioeconomically disadvantaged is largely due to the higher prevalence of health risk behaviors among those with lower levels of education and income.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the degree to which 4 behavioral risk factors (cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking, sedentary lifestyle, and relative body weight) explain the observed association between socioeconomic characteristics and all-cause mortality.
DESIGN: Longitudinal survey study investigating the impact of education, income, and health behaviors on the risk of dying within the next 7.5 years. PARTICIPANTS: A nationally representative sample of 3617 adult women and men participating in the Americans' Changing Lives survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause mortality verified through the National Death Index and death certificate reviews.
RESULTS: Educational differences in mortality were explained in full by the strong association between education and income. Controlling for age, sex, race, urbanicity, and education, the hazard rate ratio of mortality was 3.22 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.01-5.16) for those in the lowest-income group and 2.34 (95% CI, 1.49-3.67) for those in the middle-income group. When health risk behaviors were considered, the risk of dying was still significantly elevated for the lowest-income group (hazard rate ratio, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.74-4.42) and the middle-income group (hazard rate ratio, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.38-3.25).
CONCLUSION: Although reducing the prevalence of health risk behaviors in low-income populations is an important public health goal, socioeconomic differences in mortality are due to a wider array of factors and, therefore, would persist even with improved health behaviors among the disadvantaged.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9624022     DOI: 10.1001/jama.279.21.1703

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  386 in total

1.  The role of socioeconomic status gradients in explaining differences in US adolescents' health.

Authors:  E Goodman
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Policy statements adopted by the Governing Council of the American Public Health Association, November 15, 2000.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Individual income, income inequality, health, and mortality: what are the relationships?

Authors:  K Fiscella; P Franks
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 4.  To mitigate, resist, or undo: addressing structural influences on the health of urban populations.

Authors:  A T Geronimus
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 9.308

Review 5.  Urban issues in health promotion strategies.

Authors:  L C Leviton; E Snell; M McGinnis
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 9.308

6.  Longevity of screenwriters who win an academy award: longitudinal study.

Authors:  D A Redelmeier; S M Singh
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001 Dec 22-29

7.  The effect of primary care physician supply and income inequality on mortality among blacks and whites in US metropolitan areas.

Authors:  L Shi; B Starfield
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Are barriers to mental health and substance abuse care still rising?

Authors:  R Sturm; C D Sherbourne
Journal:  J Behav Health Serv Res       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 1.505

9.  Caring relationships: an investment in health?

Authors:  P A Gorski
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2000 Mar-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

10.  Population-based fecal occult blood screening for colon cancer: will the benefits outweigh the harm?

Authors:  K G Marshall
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2000-09-05       Impact factor: 8.262

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.