4.3 Article

Understanding Contributors to Racial Disparities in Blood Pressure Control

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.109.860841

关键词

blood pressure; hypertension; race; disparities

资金

  1. NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [R01 HL072814]
  2. Research Career Scientist award
  3. Health Services Research and Development Service
  4. Department of Veterans Affairs [RCS 02-066-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Racial disparities in blood pressure (BP) control are well documented but poorly understood; prior studies have only included a limited range of potential explanatory factors. We examined a comprehensive set of putative factors related to blood pressure control, including patient clinical and sociodemographic characteristics, beliefs about BP and BP medications, medication adherence, and experiences of discrimination, to determine if the impact of race on BP control remains after accounting for such factors. Methods and Results-We recruited 806 white and black patients with hypertension from an urban safety-net hospital. From a questionnaire administered to patients after their clinic visits, electronic medical record and BP data, we assessed an array of patient factors. We then examined the association of patient factors with BP control by modeling it as a function of the covariates using random-effects logistic regression. Blacks indicated worse medication adherence, more discrimination, and more concerns about high BP and BP medications, compared with whites. After accounting for all factors, race was no longer a significant predictor of BP control. Conclusions-Results suggest that equalizing patients' health beliefs, medication adherence, and experiences with care could ameliorate disparities in BP control. Additional attention must focus on the factors associated with race to identify, and ultimately intervene on, the causes of racial disparities in BP outcomes. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010; 3: 173-180.)

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

4.3
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