| Title |
Accelerated Health Declines among African Americans in the USA
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Urban Health, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11524-016-0075-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roland J. Thorpe, Ruth G. Fesahazion, Lauren Parker, Tanganiyka Wilder, Ronica N. Rooks, Janice V. Bowie, Caryn N. Bell, Sarah L. Szanton, Thomas A. LaVeist |
| Abstract |
The weathering hypothesis, an explanation for race disparities in the USA, asserts that the health of African Americans begin to deteriorate prematurely compared to whites as a consequence of long-term exposure to social and environmental risk factors. Using data from 2000-2009 National Health Interview Surveys (NHIS), we sought to describe differences in age-related health outcomes in 619,130 African Americans and whites. Outcome measures included hypertension, diabetes, stroke, and cardiovascular disease. Using a mixed models approach to age-period-cohort analysis, we calculated age- and race-specific prevalence rates that accounted for the complex sampling design of NHIS. African Americans exhibited higher prevalence rates of hypertension, diabetes, and stroke than whites across all age groups. Consistent with the weathering hypothesis, African Americans exhibited equivalent prevalence rates for these three conditions 10 years earlier than whites. This suggests that African Americans are acquiring age-related conditions prematurely compared to whites. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 115 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
| Researcher | 12 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 23 | 20% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 21 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 14% |
| Psychology | 11 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 12 | 10% |
| Unknown | 32 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 342. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 April 2024.
All research outputs
#97,152
of 25,712,965 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Urban Health
#22
of 1,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,040
of 329,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Urban Health
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,712,965 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.