No abstract

Increasing social inequalities in health in the United States and elsewhere, coupled with growing inequalities in income and wealth, have refocused attention on social class as a key determinant of population health. Routine analysis using conceptually coherent and consistent measures of socioeconomic position in US public health research and surveillance, however, remains rare. This review discusses concepts and methodologies concerning, and guidelines for measuring, social class and other aspects of socioeconomic position (e.g. income, poverty, deprivation, wealth, education). These data should be collected at the individual, household, and neighborhood level, to characterize both childhood and adult socioeconomic position; fluctuations in economic resources during these time periods also merit consideration. Guidelines for linking census-based socioeconomic measures and health data are presented, as are recommendations for analyses involving social class, race/ethnicity, and gender. Suggestions for research on socioeconomic measures are provided, to aid monitoring steps toward social equity in health.

Population health research on racial discrimination is hampered by a paucity of psychometrically validated instruments that can be feasibly used in large-scale studies. We therefore sought to investigate the validity and reliability of a short self-report instrument, the "Experiences of Discrimination" (EOD) measure, based on a prior instrument used in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study. Study participants were drawn from a cohort of working class adults, age 25-64, based in the Greater Boston area, Massachusetts (USA). The main study analytic sample included 159 black, 249 Latino, and 208 white participants; the validation study included 98 African American and 110 Latino participants who completed a re-test survey two to four weeks after the initial survey. The main and validation survey instruments included the EOD and several single-item discrimination questions; the validation survey also included the Williams Major and Everyday discrimination measures. Key findings indicated the EOD can be validly and reliably employed. Scale reliability was high, as demonstrated by confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach's alpha (0.74 or greater), and test-re-test reliability coefficients (0.70). Structural equation modeling demonstrated the EOD had the highest correlation (r=0.79) with an underlying discrimination construct compared to other self-report discrimination measures employed. It was significantly associated with psychological distress and tended to be associated with cigarette smoking among blacks and Latinos, and it was not associated with social desirability in either group. By contrast, single-item measures were notably less reliable and had low correlations with the multi-item measures. These results underscore the need for using validated, multi-item measures of experiences of racial discrimination and suggest the EOD may be one such measure that can be validly employed with working class African Americans and Latino Americans.

No abstract

BACKGROUND. Most US medical records lack socioeconomic data, hindering studies of social gradients in health and ascertainment of whether study samples are representative of the general population. This study assessed the validity of a census-based approach in addressing these problems. METHODS. Socioeconomic data from 1980 census tracts and block groups were matched to the 1985 membership records of a large prepaid health plan (n = 1.9 million), with the link provided by each individual's residential address. Among a subset of 14,420 Black and White members, comparisons were made of the association of individual, census tract, and census block-group socioeconomic measures with hypertension, height, smoking, and reproductive history. RESULTS. Census-level and individual-level socioeconomic measures were similarly associated with the selected health outcomes. Census data permitted assessing response bias due to missing individual-level socioeconomic data and also contextual effects involving the interaction of individual- and neighborhood-level socioeconomic traits. On the basis of block-group characteristics, health plan members generally were representative of the total population; persons in impoverished neighborhoods, however, were underrepresented. CONCLUSIONS. This census-based methodology offers a valid and useful approach to overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in most US medical records.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined associations between blood pressure and self reported experiences of racial discrimination and responses to unfair treatment. METHODS: Survey data were collected in year 7 (1992/93) of the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, a prospective multisite community-based investigation. Participants included 831 Black men, 1143 Black women, 1006 White men, and 1106 White women 25 to 37 years old. RESULTS: Systolic blood pressure among working-class Black adults reporting that they typically accepted unfair treatment and had experienced racial discrimination in none of seven situations was about 7 mm Hg higher than among those reporting that they challenged unfair treatment and experienced racial discrimination in one or two of the situations. Among professional Black adults, systolic blood pressure was 9 to 10 mm Hg lower among those reporting that they typically challenged unfair treatment and had not experienced racial discrimination. Black-White differences in blood pressure were substantially reduced by taking into account reported experiences of racial discrimination and responses to unfair treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Research on racial/ ethnic distributions of blood pressure should take into account how discrimination may harm health.

Despite the promise of geocoding and use of area-based socioeconomic measures to overcome the paucity of socioeconomic data in US public health surveillance systems, no consensus exists as to which measures should be used or at which level of geography. The authors generated diverse single-variable and composite area-based socioeconomic measures at the census tract, block group, and zip code level for Massachusetts (1990 population: 6,016,425) and Rhode Island (1990 population: 1,003,464) to investigate their associations with mortality rates (1989-1991: 156,366 resident deaths in Massachusetts and 27,291 in Rhode Island) and incidence of primary invasive cancer (1988-1992: 140,610 resident cases in Massachusetts; 1989-1992: 19,808 resident cases in Rhode Island). Analyses of all-cause and cause-specific mortality rates and all-cause and site-specific cancer incidence rates indicated that: 1) block group and tract socioeconomic measures performed comparably within and across both states, but zip code measures for several outcomes detected no gradients or gradients contrary to those observed with tract and block group measures; 2) similar gradients were detected with categories generated by quintiles and by a priori categorical cutpoints; and 3) measures including data on economic poverty were most robust and detected gradients that were unobserved using measures of only education and wealth.

Investigating effects of discrimination upon health requires clear concepts, methods, and measures. At issue are both economic consequences of discrimination and accumulated insults arising from everyday and at times violent experiences of being treated as a second-class citizen, at each and every economic level. Guidelines for epidemiologic investigations and other public health research on ways people embody racism, sexism, and other forms of social inequality, however, are not well defined, as research in this area is in its infancy. Employing an ecosocial framework, this article accordingly reviews definitions and patterns of discrimination within the United States; evaluates analytic strategies and instruments researchers have developed to study health effects of different kinds of discrimination; and delineates diverse pathways by which discrimination can harm health, both outright and by distorting production of epidemiologic knowledge about determinants of population health. Three methods of studying health consequences of discrimination are examined (indirect; direct, at the individual level, in relation to personal experiences of discrimination; at the population level, such as via segregation), and recommendations are provided for developing research instruments to measure acute and cumulative exposure to different aspects of discrimination.