Cited by 96Racial and Ethnic Identity ResearchHealth disparities and outcomesBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies

Cross-sectional association between perceived discrimination and hypertension in African-American men and women: the Pitt County Study

Open access
Roberts, C. B., Vines, A. I., Kaufman, J. S., James, S. A.·2007·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Few studies have examined the impact of the frequency of discrimination on hypertension risk. The authors assessed the cross-sectional associations between frequency of perceived racial and nonracial discrimination and hypertension among 1,110 middle-aged African-American men (n = 393) and women (n = 717) participating in the 2001 follow-up of the Pitt County Study (Pitt County, North Carolina). Odds ratios were estimated using gender-specific unconditional weighted logistic regression with adjustment for relevant confounders and the frequency of discrimination. More than half of the men (57%) and women (55%) were hypertensive. The prevalences of perceived racial discrimination, nonracial discrimination, and no discrimination were 57%, 29%, and 13%, respectively, in men and 42%, 43%, and 15%, respectively, in women. Women recounting frequent nonracial discrimination versus those reporting no exposure to discrimination had the highest odds of hypertension (adjusted odds ratio = 2.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.09, 5.02). A nonsignificant inverse odds ratio was evident in men who perceived frequent exposure to racial or nonracial discrimination in comparison with no exposure. A similar association was observed for women reporting perceived racial discrimination. These results indicate that the type and frequency of discrimination perceived by African-American men and women may differentially affect their risk of hypertension.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwm334

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The possibility that the relationship between racism and blood pressure may be curvilinear was not explored in the current meta-analysis due to limitations in the statistical analysis program used.

    “Although some research has suggested the relationship between racism and blood pressure may be curvilinear [121, 281, 304, 402–403], this possibility was not explored in the current meta-analysis due to limitations in the statistical analysis program we utilized.”

    From Racism as a Determinant of Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2015) · cites this paper as [304]

    The paper’s introduction (page not specified in our copy) says that whether discrimination affects health through a dose-response or threshold pattern remains unresolved. This supports considering different shapes for the association, but it does not specifically suggest a curvilinear relationship between racism and blood pressure. The statement about the citing authors’ meta-analysis is their own explanation, not a claim attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.77)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Smedley BD, Nelson AR. Unequal treatment: confronting ra- cial and ethnic disparities in healthcare. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts, C. B., Vines, A. I., Kaufman, J. S., & James, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Duke University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2007-12-12
Volume
167
Issue
5
Pages
624-632
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2129885818
Cited by
96
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 18
FWCI
8.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University Libraries (University of Maryland) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL065645, HL 65645)
  • National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Keywords
perceived discrimination, racial discrimination, hypertension, sex differences, middle-aged adults
MeSH terms
Aged, Black or African American, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, North Carolina, Prejudice, Psychometrics, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Social Perception, Body Mass Index, Prevalence, Logistic Models, Risk Assessment

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