↓ Skip to main content

Wealth-Associated Disparities in Death and Disability in the United States and England

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
72 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
144 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Wealth-Associated Disparities in Death and Disability in the United States and England
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, December 2017
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.3903
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lena K. Makaroun, Rebecca T. Brown, L. Grisell Diaz-Ramirez, Cyrus Ahalt, W. John Boscardin, Sean Lang-Brown, Sei Lee

Abstract

Low income has been associated with poor health outcomes. Owing to retirement, wealth may be a better marker of financial resources among older adults. To determine the association of wealth with mortality and disability among older adults in the United States and England. The US Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA) are nationally representative cohorts of community-dwelling older adults. We examined 12 173 participants enrolled in HRS and 7599 enrolled in ELSA in 2002. Analyses were stratified by age (54-64 years vs 66-76 years) because many safety-net programs commence around age 65 years. Participants were followed until 2012 for mortality and disability. Wealth quintile, based on total net worth in 2002. Mortality and disability, defined as difficulty performing an activity of daily living. A total of 6233 US respondents and 4325 English respondents aged 54 to 64 years (younger cohort) and 5940 US respondents and 3274 English respondents aged 66 to 76 years (older cohort) were analyzed for the mortality outcome. Slightly over half of respondents were women (HRS: 6570, 54%; ELSA: 3974, 52%). A higher proportion of respondents from HRS were nonwhite compared with ELSA in both the younger (14% vs 3%) and the older (13% vs 3%) age cohorts. We found increased risk of death and disability as wealth decreased. In the United States, participants aged 54 to 64 years in the lowest wealth quintile (Q1) (≤$39 000) had a 17% mortality risk and 48% disability risk over 10 years, whereas in the highest wealth quintile (Q5) (>$560 000) participants had a 5% mortality risk and 15% disability risk (mortality hazard ratio [HR], 3.3; 95% CI, 2.0-5.6; P < .001; disability subhazard ratio [sHR], 4.0; 95% CI, 2.9-5.6; P < .001). In England, participants aged 54 to 64 years in Q1 (≤£34,000) had a 16% mortality risk and 42% disability risk over 10 years, whereas Q5 participants (>£310,550) had a 4% mortality risk and 17% disability risk (mortality HR, 4.4; 95% CI, 2.7-7.0; P < .001; disability sHR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.1-4.2; P < .001). In 66- to 76-year-old participants, the absolute risks of mortality and disability were higher, but risk gradients across wealth quintiles were similar. When adjusted for sex, age, race, income, and education, HR for mortality and sHR for disability were attenuated but remained statistically significant. Low wealth was associated with death and disability in both the United States and England. This relationship was apparent from age 54 years and continued into later life. Access to health care may not attenuate wealth-associated disparities in older adults.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 144 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 14%
Student > Master 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Other 25 20%
Unknown 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 23%
Social Sciences 15 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Psychology 5 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 47 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 669. 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 19 April 2024.
All research outputs
#32,569
of 25,830,005 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#300
of 11,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#661
of 447,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#6
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,830,005 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 11,726 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 84.5. 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 447,810 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 130 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.