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 4 Cox PH of race/ethnicity vs. all-cause mortality: further adjustment for physical activity, cigarette smoking and social support ^a, NHANES III

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

	Model 5: Model 4 further adjusted for physical activity^b			Model 6: Model 5 further adjusted for cigarette smoking^c			Model 7: Model 6 further adjusted for social support 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 = 3019)			(N = 3019)			(N = 3019)
NHB vs. NHW	−0.13	(-0.70;+0.44)	0.65	−0.14	(-0.71;+0.42)	0.63	−0.16	(-0.73;+0.40)	0.57
MA vs. NHW	−0.74	(-1.57;+0.09)	0.08	−0.74	(-1.57;+0.08)	0.08	−0.76	(-1.59;+0.07)	0.07
<50y, men, PIR ≥ 125 %	(N = 2773)			(N = 2773)			(N = 2773)
NHB vs. NHW	+0.72	(+0.31;+1.12)	0.001	+0.83	(+0.37;+1.29)	<0.001	+0.80	(+0.32;+1.28)	<0.001
MA vs. NHW	−0.05	(-0.63;+0.54)	0.88	+0.11	(-0.53;+0.75)	0.74	+0.11	(-0.55;+0.78)	0.73
<50y, women, PIR < 125 %	(N = 1683)			(N = 1683)			(N = 1683)
NHB vs. NHW	+0.43	(-0.48;+1.34)	0.34	+0.43	(-0.48;+1.34)	0.35	+0.49	(-0.42;1.40)	0.29
MA vs. NHW	−0.46	(-2.03;+1.11)	0.56	−0.43	(-1.95;+1.08)	0.57	−0.37	(-1.85;1.10)	0.61
<50y, men, PIR < 125 %	(N = 1232)			(N = 1232)			(N = 1232)
NHB vs. NHW	+0.08	(-0.48;+0.64)	0.79	+0.13	(-0.48;+0.74)	0.68	+0.18	(-0.45;+0.80)	0.58
MA vs. NHW	−0.38	(-1.04;+0.29)	0.26	−0.31	(-1.01;+0.39)	0.39	−0.34	(-1.10;+0.41)	0.37
≥50y, women, PIR ≥ 125 %	(N = 2345)			(N = 2345)			(N = 2345)
NHB vs. NHW	+0.10	(-0.13;+0.33)	0.39	+0.21	(-0.03;+0.44)	0.08	+0.22	(-0.01;+0.45)	0.06
MA vs. NHW	−0.49	(-0.87;-0.12)	0.010	−0.41	(-0.81;-0.01)	0.042	−0.39	(-0.79;+0.00)	0.05
≥50y, men, PIR ≥ 125 %	(N = 2339)			(N = 2339)			(N = 2339)
NHB vs. NHW	+0.09	(-0.13;+0.31)	0.41	+0.16	(-0.06;+0.38)	0.16	+0.17	(-0.05;+0.39)	0.13
MA vs. NHW	−0.05	(-0.33;+0.23)	0.75	+0.04	(-0.25;+0.32)	0.79	+0.05	(-0.23;+0.36)	0.70
≥50y, women, PIR < 125 %	(N = 1046)			(N = 1046)			(N = 1046)
NHB vs. NHW	−0.06	(-0.35;+0.22)	0.65	−0.01	(-0.30;+0.27)	0.93	−0.01	(-0.29;+0.27)	0.95
MA vs. NHW	−0.25	(-0.69;+0.20)	0.27	−0.17	(-0.61;+0.26)	0.43	−0.16	(-0.58;+0.26)	0.95
≥50y, men, PIR < 125 %	(N = 805)			(N = 805)			(N = 805)
NHB vs. NHW	+0.05	(-0.26;+0.36)	0.75	+0.10	(-0.21;+0.41)	0.54	+0.13	(-0.20;0.45)	0.44
MA vs. NHW	−0.32	(-0.72;+0.09)	0.13	−0.24	(-0.68;+0.19)	0.27	−0.25	(-0.69;+0.20)	0.27

Abbreviation: CI Confidence Interval, exp exponent, HR Hazard Ratio, LCL Lower confidence limit, Log_e Natural logarithm, 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 5 was Model 4 (Table 3) further adjusted for 3 physical activity items
³Model 6 is Model 5 further adjusted for cigarette smoking (2 items). Model 7 is Model 6 further adjusted for social support factors (5 items). 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