4.7 Article

Pathways explaining racial/ethnic disparities in incident all-cause dementia among middle-aged US adults

期刊

ALZHEIMERS & DEMENTIA
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alz.12976

关键词

aging; Alzheimer's disease; dementia; modifiable risk factors; racial disparities; structural equations modeling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are racial disparities in dementia incidence among middle-aged adults, which are influenced by socioeconomic status (SES), lifestyle, and health-related characteristics. Non-White adults have a higher risk of AD-specific (HR=2.05) and all-cause dementia (HR=2.01) compared to Non-Hispanic White adults. Diet, smoking, and physical activity mediate the relationship between race/ethnicity, SES, and dementia, with smoking and physical activity having health-mediating effects on dementia risk.
INTRODUCTIONRacial disparities in dementia incidence exist, but less is known about their presence and drivers among middle-aged adults. METHODSWe used time-to-event analysis among a sample of 4378 respondents (age 40-59 years at baseline) drawn from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES III) with administrative linkage-spanning the years 1988-2014-to evaluate potential mediating pathways through socioeconomic status (SES), lifestyle, and health-related characteristics. RESULTSCompared with Non-Hispanic White (NHW) adults, Non-White adults had a higher incidence of AD-specific (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.05, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21, 3.49) and all-cause dementia (HR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.36, 2.98). Diet, smoking, and physical activity were among characteristics on the pathway between race/ethnicity, SES, and dementia, with health-mediating effects of smoking and physical activity on dementia risk. DISCUSSIONWe identified several pathways that may generate racial disparities in incident all-cause dementia among middle-aged adults. No direct effect of race was observed. More studies are needed to corroborate our findings in comparable populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据