4.7 Article

Individual versus neighborhood socioeconomic status and race as predictors of adolescent ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 63, 期 6, 页码 1442-1453

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.019

关键词

socioeconomic status; blood pressure; cardiovascular; adolescent; youth; neighborhood; USA

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL25767, HL07560] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Socioeconomic status (SES) disparities are linked to increased cardiovascular disease risk. Although typically considered an individual or family indicator, SES alternatively can be derived from neighborhood characteristics. Previous research has found both family and neighborhood SES predict laboratory blood pressure responses in youth. The question remains as to whether this SES gradient predicts blood pressure during daily living situations. We evaluated individual versus neighborhood SES and race as predictors of ambulatory blood pressure and heart rate. Participants were recruited from two schools in Pittsburgh, diverse in terms of both race and SES. Adolescents' (N = 212, 14.5 years, 50% black) cardiovascular responses were measured at school and home. Individual (parent education, household income) and neighborhood SES indices (derived from 78 census tracts: percentage with high school degree or less, percentage below poverty) were assessed. A neighborhood index of race based on the proportion of blacks in the census tract was also derived as a counterpart to individuals' race. Multi-level modeling indicated neighborhood income predicted systolic blood pressure. Individual race predicted diastolic blood pressure. Individual income and education, and neighborhood race each predicted heart rate. These results have important public health implications as they suggest individual and neighborhood SES and race are linked to cardiovascular risk disparities as early as adolescence. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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