4.0 Article

Racial disparities in hypertension prevalence, awareness, and management

Journal

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 165, Issue 18, Pages 2098-2104

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.165.18.2098

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Effectively reducing cardiovascular disease disparities requires identifying and reducing disparities in risk factors. Improved understanding of hypertension disparities is critical. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of nationally representative samples of black and white adults 20 years and older who participated in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2002 (white, n = 4624; black, n = 1837) and NHANES III conducted in 1988-1994 (white, n = 712 1; black, n = 4709). We examined differences in hypertension prevalence, awareness, treatment, and blood pressure (BP) control among both treated and prevalent cases across the 2 periods. Results: Hypertension prevalence increased significantly from 35.8% to 41.4% among blacks and from 24.3% to 28.1% among whites and remains significantly higher among blacks. Awareness is higher among blacks (77.7% vs 70.4%; P <.001), as is treatment (68.2% vs 60.4%; P <.001). These results are driven by higher rates in black women. Blood pressure control rates among those treated have increased in both races, primarily as a result of increased BP control in black and white men (27.3% and 44.7%, respectively; P <= .03). Despite the improved BP control rates, disparity in BP control among treated cases increased, with 59.7% of treated whites and 48.9% of treated blacks now reaching BP goal (P <.001). Racial differences in BP control rates among those treated cannot be explained by nonpharmacologic management or health insurance, but educational attainment is associated with BP control. Conclusion: The higher prevalence of hypertension in blacks and the growing disparity in BP control among those treated pharmacologically are causes for concern.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available