4.6 Article

Socioeconomic status and mortality among the elderly: Findings from four US communities

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 155, Issue 6, Pages 520-533

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/155.6.520

Keywords

aged; cohort studies; mortality; socioeconomic factors; survival analysis

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01-AG12765, N01-AG-0-2106, R01-AG010127, N01-AG-1-2102, R01-AG011042, N01-AG-0-2105, N01-AG-0-2107] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on mortality was examined in the community-dwelling elderly. Data were obtained from four population-based studies that enrolled elderly residents of four US communities (East Boston, Massachusetts; New Haven, Connecticut; east-central Iowa; and the Piedmont region of North Carolina) and followed them for 9 years, starting in 1982 or 1986. Higher SES, whether measured by education, by household income, or by occupational prestige, was generally associated with lower mortality. However, the pattern of findings varied by gender and by community. For men, all three SES indicators were associated with mortality in the majority of cohorts. For women, this was true only for income. SES-mortality associations were attenuated but not eliminated after adjustment for behavior and health status. SES-mortality associations were stronger in New Haven and North Carolina than in East Boston and Iowa. The latter communities are more homogeneous with respect to ethnicity, urbanization, and occupational history than the former. Future research should investigate the relative validity of traditional SES measures for men and women and develop more balanced assessment methods. These findings also suggest that it is important to consider not only individual characteristics but also community attributes that mediate or modify the pathways through which socioeconomic conditions may influence health.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available