4.1 Article

US MILITARY SERVICE AND RACIAL/ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE: AN ANALYSIS OF THE 2011-2016 BEHAVIORAL RISK FACTOR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

Journal

ETHNICITY & DISEASE
Volume 29, Issue 3, Pages 451-462

Publisher

INT SOC HYPERTENSION BLACKS-ISHIB
DOI: 10.18865/ed.29.3.451

Keywords

Veterans Health; Military; Race/Ethnicity; Health Status Disparities; Cardiovascular Diseases; Health Behavior

Funding

  1. United States Air Force, Headquarters, Office of the Surgeon General

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine: 1) rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among individuals with and without prior US military service; and 2) variation in CVD outcomes by race/ethnicity. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of the 2011-2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System during 2018-2019. Groups with (n-369,844) and without (n=2,491,784) prior service were compared overall, and by race/ethnicity. CVD odds were compared using logistic regression. Rate-difference decomposition was used to estimate relative contributions of covariates to differences in CVD prevalence. Results: CVD was associated with military service (OR=1.34; P<.001). Among non-Hispanic Blacks, prior service was associated with a lower odds of CVD (OR=.69; P<.001), fully attenuating the net difference in CVD between individuals with and without prior service. Non-Hispanic Whites who served had the highest odds of CVD, while Hispanics with prior service had the same odds of CVD as non-Hispanic Whites without prior service. After age, smoking and body mass index status were the largest contributors to CVD differences by race/ethnicity. Conclusions: Results from this study support an association between prior military service and CVD and highlight differences in this association by race/ethnicity. Knowledge of modifiable health behaviors that contribute to differences in CVD outcomes could be used to guide prevention efforts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available