| Title |
General Self-Efficacy and Mortality in the USA; Racial Differences
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40615-016-0278-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shervin Assari |
| Abstract |
General self-efficacy has been historically assumed to have universal health implications. However, less is known about population differences in long-term health effects of general self-efficacy across diverse populations. This study compared black and white American adults for (1) the association between psychosocial and health factors and general self-efficacy at baseline, and (2) the association between baseline self-efficacy and long-term risk of all-cause mortality over 25 years. The Americans' Changing Lives (ACL) study, 1986-2011, is a nationally representative longitudinal cohort of US adults. The study followed 3361 black (n = 1156) and white (n = 2205) adults for up to 25 years. General self-efficacy as well as demographics, socioeconomics, stressful life events, health behaviors, obesity, depressive symptoms, and self-rated health were measured at baseline in 1986. The outcome was time to all-cause mortality since 1986. Race was the focal moderator. Logistic regression and proportional hazards models were used for data analysis. Although blacks had lower general self-efficacy, this association was fully explained by socioeconomic factors (education and income). Our logistic regression suggested interactions between race and education, self-rated health, and stress on general self-efficacy at baseline. Baseline general self-efficacy was associated with risk of mortality in the pooled sample. Race interacted with baseline general self-efficacy on mortality risk, suggesting stronger association for whites than blacks. Black-white differences exist in psychosocial and health factors associated with self-efficacy in the USA. Low general self-efficacy does not increase mortality risk for blacks. Future research should test whether socioeconomic status, race-related attitudes, world views, attributions, and locus of control can potentially explain why low self-efficacy is not associated with higher risk of mortality among American blacks. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 33 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 12 | 14% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 32 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 132. 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 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#263,816
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#25
of 1,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,742
of 319,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 319,867 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 93% of its contemporaries.