Key result
Reporting both racial and gender discrimination is linked to ~0.6-point lower CVH scores in white men.
Why the study?
To test hypotheses from the Identity Pathology framework by assessing race-gender differences in the effects of experiencing racial and gender discrimination simultaneously versus alone or no discrimination on future cardiovascular health.
Does reporting racial and gender discrimination affect future cardiovascular health scores in black and white adults?
Cohort (n=3,758)
Yes
Does reporting racial and gender discrimination affect future cardiovascular health scores in black and white adults?
Mean Difference: -0.6 (95% CI -1.1–-0.1)
The intersectional effects of reported racial and gender discrimination on future cardiovascular health vary significantly across race-gender groups, highlighting the complex impact of discrimination on cardiovascular risk.
No immediate clinical implications for white men; extends observational data on intersectional discrimination but leaves open causal effects on CV health.
Testing hypotheses from the emerging Identity Pathology (IP) framework, we assessed race-gender differences in the effects of reporting experiences of racial and gender discrimination simultaneously compared with racial or gender discrimination alone, or no discrimination, on future cardiovascular health (CVH). Data were from a sample of 3758 black or white adults in CARDIA, a community-based cohort recruited in Birmingham, AL; Chicago, IL; Minneapolis, MN, and Oakland, CA in 1985-6 (year 0). Racial and gender discrimination were assessed using the Experiences of Discrimination scale. CVH was evaluated using a 12-point composite outcome modified from the Life's Simple 7, with higher scores indicating better health. Multivariable linear regressions were used to evaluate the associations between different perceptions of discrimination and CVH scores two decades later by race and gender simultaneously. Reporting racial and gender discrimination in ≥2 settings were 48% of black women, 42% of black men, 10% of white women, and 5% of white men. Year 30 CVH scores (mean, SD) were 7.9(1.4), 8.1(1.6), 8.8(1.6), and 8.7(1.3), respectively. Compared with those of their race-gender groups reporting no discrimination, white women reporting only gender-based discrimination saw an adjusted score difference of +0.3 (95% CI: 0.0,0.6), whereas white men reporting only racial discrimination had on average a 0.4 (95% CI: 0.1,0.8) higher score, and scores among white men reporting both racial and gender discrimination were on average 0.6 (95% CI: 1.1,-0.1) lower than those of their group reporting no discrimination. Consistent with predictions of the IP model, the associations of reported racial and gender discrimination with future CVH were different for different racially-defined gender groups. More research is needed to understand why reported racial and gender discrimination might better predict deterioration in CVH for whites than blacks, and what additional factors associated with gender and race contribute variability to CVH among these groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bey et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular health (n=3,758). Racial and gender discrimination vs. No discrimination was evaluated on Cardiovascular health (CVH) evaluated using a 12-point composite outcome (MD -0.6, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.1). Reporting both racial and gender discrimination was associated with a 0.6-point lower cardiovascular health score in white men compared to no discrimination (95% CI: -1.1 to -0.1).
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: