Cited by 509Health disparities and outcomesCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Socioeconomic status and trends in disparities in 4 major risk factors for cardiovascular disease among US adults, 1971-2002

Kanjilal, Sanjat·2006·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background It is unknown whether the previously recognized disparities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors related to annual income and educational level have diminished, persisted, or worsened in recent decades. The objective of this study was to examine 31-year trends in CVD risk factors by annual income and educational levels among US adults. Methods Four cross-sectional national surveys were used: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I (1971-1974), II (1976-1980), III (1988-1994), and 1999-2002. The main outcome measure was prevalence of high cholesterol (> or =240 mg/dL [> or =6.2 mmol/L]), high blood pressure (140/90 mm Hg), smoking, and diabetes mellitus. Results Between 1971 and 2002, the prevalence of all CVD risk factors, except diabetes, decreased in all income and education groups, but there has been little reduction in income- and education-related disparities in CVD risk factors and few improvements during the past 10 years. The prevalence of high blood pressure declined by about half in all income and education groups, ranging from 30.3% to 40.6% in 1971-1974 and 16.4% in 1999-2002, with the greatest reduction among those in the lowest income quartile and those with less than a high school education (18.0 and 15.9 percentage points, respectively). High cholesterol prevalence also declined in all groups and ranged from 28.8% to 32.4% in 1971-1974 and 15.3% to 22.0% in 1999-2002, with the largest decline (15.9 percentage points) among people…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.166.21.2348

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kanjilal, S.
Affiliations
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Kanjilal, Sanjat
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2006-11-27
Volume
166
Issue
21
Pages
2348
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2037204010
Cited by
509
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 32
FWCI
24.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
cardiovascular risk factors, socioeconomic disparities, income, educational attainment, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, smoking, diabetes mellitus, temporal trends, health disparities, United States adults, prevalence decline, low-income populations, racial disparities, ethnic disparities, diabetes prevalence, hypertension control
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Educational Status, Female, Humans, Hypercholesterolemia, Hypertension, Income, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Smoking, Social Class, United States, Prevalence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review