Racial disparities in adult all-cause and cause-specific mortality among us adults: mediating and moderating factors

Beydoun, M. A.; Beydoun, H. A.; Mode, N.; Dore, G. A.; Canas, J. A.; Eid, S. M.; Zonderman, A. B.

doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3744-z

Table 3 Cox PH of race/ethnicity vs. all-cause mortality: further adjustment for SES, substance abuse and dietary factors ^a, NHANES III

From: Racial disparities in adult all-cause and cause-specific mortality among us adults: mediating and moderating factors

	Model 2: Model 1+ SES factors^b			Model 3: Further adjusted for substance abuse factors^c			Model 4: Further adjusted for dietary factors^d
	Log_e(HR)	95 % CI	P	Log_e(HR)	95 % CI	P	Log_e(HR)	95 % CI	P
<50y, women, PIR ≥ 125 %	(N = 3105)			(N = 3105)			(N = 3019)
NHB vs. NHW	−0.13	(-0.65;+0.40)	0.64	−0.12	(-0.64;+0.41)	0.66	−0.10	(-0.66;+0.46)	0.73
MA vs. NHW	−0.87	(-1.69;-0.04)	0.040	−0.85	(-1.64;-0.02)	0.044	−0.80	(-1.64;+0.05)	0.06
<50y, men, PIR ≥ 125 %	(N = 2860)			(N = 2860)			(N = 2773)
NHB vs. NHW	+0.71	(+0.30;+1.13)	0.001	+0.71	(+0.29;+1.12)	0.001	+0.70	(+0.28;+1.11)	0.001
MA vs. NHW	+0.06	(-0.50;+0.62)	0.84	+0.04	(-0.53;+0.60)	0.90	−0.06	(-0.65;+0.53)	0.84
<50y, women, PIR < 125 %	(N = 1728)			(N = 1728)			(N = 1683)
NHB vs. NHW	+0.36	(-0.56;+1.27)	0.44	+0.38	(-0.54;+1.31)	0.40	+0.45	(-0.47;+1.37)	0.32
MA vs. NHW	−0.59	(-2.06;+0.87)	0.42	−0.40	(-1.91;+1.10)	0.59	−0.43	(-2.03;+1.17)	0.59
<50y, men, PIR < 125 %	(N = 1269)			(N = 1269)			(N = 1232)
NHB vs. NHW	−0.14	(-0.73;+0.45)	0.64	−0.13	(-0.73;+0.45)	0.65	+0.06	(-0.51;+0.64)	0.84
MA vs. NHW	−0.75	(-1.41;-0.08)	0.027	−0.75	(-1.43;-0.07)	0.031	−0.44	(-1.12;+0.25)	0.21
≥50y, women, PIR ≥ 125 %	(N = 2420)			(N = 2420)			(N = 2345)
NHB vs. NHW	+0.16	(-0.06;+0.38)	0.17	+0.16	(-0.06;+0.38)	0.15	+0.13	(-0.10;+0.36)	0.28
MA vs. NHW	−0.54	(-0.92;-0.15)	0.006	−0.54	(-0.92;-0.15)	0.006	−0.44	(-0.82;-0.07)	0.021
≥50y, men, PIR ≥ 125 %	(N = 2443)			(N = 2443)			(N = 2339)
NHB vs. NHW	+0.19	(-0.00;+0.38)	0.05	+0.19	(-0.01;+0.39)	0.06	+0.06	(-0.15;+0.27)	0.58
MA vs. NHW	−0.08	(-0.35;+0.18)	0.56	−0.08	(-0.36;-0.19)	0.54	−0.07	(-0.35;+0.21)	0.61
≥50y, women, PIR < 125 %	(N = 1101)			(N = 1101)			(N = 1046)
NHB vs. NHW	−0.00	(-0.27;+0.27)	0.98	+0.00	(-0.27;+0.27)	0.99	−0.01	(-0.30;+0.28)	0.93
MA vs. NHW	−0.27	(-0.68;+0.15)	0.21	−0.25	(-0.67;+0.17)	0.24	−0.22	(-0.66;+0.23)	0.34
≥50y, men, PIR < 125 %	(N = 861)			(N = 861)			(N = 805)
NHB vs. NHW	+0.06	(-0.21;+0.32)	0.68	+0.08	(-0.18;+0.34)	0.53	+0.08	(-0.21;+0.38)	0.57
MA vs. NHW	−0.40	(-0.79;-0.02)	0.041	−0.37	(-0.75;+0.02)	0.06	−0.29	(-0.68;+0.10)	0.15

Abbreviation: CI Confidence Interval, exp exponent, HEI Healthy Eating Index, HR Hazard Ratio, LCL Lower confidence limit, Log_e Natural logarithm, MAR mean adequacy ratio, MA Mexican-American, NHANES National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, NHB Non-Hispanic Black, NHW Non-Hispanic White, PIR Poverty Income Ratio, SE Standard error, UCL Upper confidence limit
^aValues are the natural log of hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % CI with p-values, taking into account unequal probability of selection or sampling weights. Statistical significance is inferred from a 95 % CI not crossing the value of zero
^bModel 2 was Model 1 (Table 2) further adjusted for poverty income ratio, education and health insurance status
^cModel 3 is Model 2 further adjusted for drug use and alcohol consumption. Model 4 is Model 3 further adjusted for dietary factors (1995-HEI and the MAR total scores). Note that the point estimate of the HR can be computed as exp(β) where β = Log_e(HR). The 95 % CI for the HR is computed as exp^{(β±1.96*SE(β))}, whereby SE(β) = (UCL_β -LCL_β)/3.92

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcpublichealth@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Public Health

Contact us