Cited by 193Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesHealth disparities and outcomesRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

Socioeconomic Status, John Henryism, and Blood Pressure in Black Adults

James, Sherman A., Keenan, Nora L., Strogatz, David S., Browning, Steven R., Garrett, Joanne M.·1992·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

The joint influence of socioeconomic status and John Henryism on blood pressure was examined in a probability sample of 1,784 black adults aged 25-50 years in Pitt County, North Carolina, in 1988. John Henryism was measured by means of the John Henryism Active Coping Scale. Socioeconomic status (low, medium, and high) was based on respondents' education and occupation. Prior research indicated that, for blacks, the inverse association between socioeconomic status and hypertension may be stronger for individuals who score high in John Henryism. In this more urban sample of blacks, the hypothesized interaction achieved modest statistical support (p less than 0.08) only for hypertension prevalence. For individuals with high levels of John Henryism, adjusted prevalences declined with increasing socioeconomic status (29.4%, 26.2%, and 20.5% for low, medium, and high socioeconomic status, respectively); for individuals with low levels of John Henryism, hypertension prevalence was similar in the low (22.6%) and medium (22.8%) socioeconomic categories but higher in the high socioeconomic category (25.9%). Elevated psychological stress in white-collar workers was probably responsible for the nonsignificant inverse gradients between socioeconomic status and mean blood pressures and for the weak interaction between socioeconomic status and John Henryism with regard to hypertension prevalence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116202

Cites

17 of 17 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
James, S. A., Keenan, N. L., Strogatz, D. S., Browning, S. R., & Garrett, J. M.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
James, Sherman A.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
1992-01-01
Volume
135
Issue
1
Pages
59-67
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2170399867
Cited by
193
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 13
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UKnowledge (University of Kentucky) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL-33211, R01HL033211)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
socioeconomic status, John Henryism, blood pressure, hypertension prevalence, Black people, psychological stress, coping, occupational stress, urban-rural differences, Pitt County, North Carolina
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Black or African American, Blood Pressure, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, North Carolina, Occupations, Rural Population, Socioeconomic Factors, Stress, Psychological, 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