Abstract 4357208: Discrimination in Healthcare and Incident Stroke or Myocardial Infarction

Introduction: People who experience discrimination in healthcare may be less likely to interact with the healthcare system and receive guideline-recommended care, contributing to disparities in multiple health outcomes. The degree to which discrimination is associated with cardiovascular health is not well understood. Research Question: Is self-reported discrimination in healthcare associated with a composite outcome of incident stroke or MI? Methods: We included participants age 50-80 at baseline from the 2008-2020 Health and Retirement Study who were followed for up to 12 years. Discrimination in healthcare was assessed at baseline by asking respondents how often they “receive poorer service or treatment than other people from doctors or hospitals.” Incident stroke or MI was determined through participant-reported diagnosis by a doctor during follow-up (month/year). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate incident stroke or MI (n=1911 events). Due to differences in sociodemographic factors and health status, which are associated with the probability of reporting discrimination, we calculated stabilized inverse probability weights from a logistic propensity score and applied them to our models. Our models adjusted for baseline covariates: sociodemographic factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, being uninsured), health status (BMI, smoking status, disease diagnoses [diabetes, hypertension, heart disease]), events before study baseline (prior stroke or mi), and prior healthcare utilization (doctor visits in past 2 years). We employed a sensitivity analysis which used a shorter follow-up period to assess risk of discrimination closer to exposure time. Results: Among study participants (n=17632, mean age 66, 42% male, 69% Non-Hispanic White, 17% Non-Hispanic Black, 10% Hispanic, 3% Non-Hispanic Other), 19% (n=3347) reported discrimination in healthcare settings. Self-reported healthcare discrimination was associated with an increased hazard of stroke or MI (hazard ratio [HR]=1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.10-1.39) over the entire follow-up. The hazard is strongest over a shorter 2-year follow-up (HR=1.46, 95% CI=1.17-1.82), and the hazard plateaus after a 5-year follow-up (HR=1.23, 95% CI=1.05=1.44). Conclusions: Even after adjusting for sociodemographic factors and health status, participants who reported experiencing discrimination in healthcare were at increased risk of stroke or MI over short-term and long-term follow-up.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.152.suppl_3.4357208
Primary Topic
Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4357208: Discrimination in Healthcare and Incident Stroke or Myocardial Infarction

Matthew E. Dupre, M. Brookhart, Ann Marie Návar, Roland J. Thorpe et al.
Circulation
Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
article

Abstract 4357208: Discrimination in Healthcare and Incident Stroke or Myocardial Infarction

Matthew E. Dupre, M. Brookhart, Ann Marie Návar, Roland J. Thorpe, Emily C. O’Brien, Michael D. Green
article en

Abstract

Introduction: People who experience discrimination in healthcare may be less likely to interact with the healthcare system and receive guideline-recommended care, contributing to disparities in multiple health outcomes. The degree to which discrimination is associated with cardiovascular health is not well understood. Research Question: Is self-reported discrimination in healthcare associated with a composite outcome of incident stroke or MI? Methods: We included participants age 50-80 at baseline from the 2008-2020 Health and Retirement Study who were followed for up to 12 years. Discrimination in healthcare was assessed at baseline by asking respondents how often they “receive poorer service or treatment than other people from doctors or hospitals.” Incident stroke or MI was determined through participant-reported diagnosis by a doctor during follow-up (month/year). Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate incident stroke or MI (n=1911 events). Due to differences in sociodemographic factors and health status, which are associated with the probability of reporting discrimination, we calculated stabilized inverse probability weights from a logistic propensity score and applied them to our models. Our models adjusted for baseline covariates: sociodemographic factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, being uninsured), health status (BMI, smoking status, disease diagnoses [diabetes, hypertension, heart disease]), events before study baseline (prior stroke or mi), and prior healthcare utilization (doctor visits in past 2 years). We employed a sensitivity analysis which used a shorter follow-up period to assess risk of discrimination closer to exposure time. Results: Among study participants (n=17632, mean age 66, 42% male, 69% Non-Hispanic White, 17% Non-Hispanic Black, 10% Hispanic, 3% Non-Hispanic Other), 19% (n=3347) reported discrimination in healthcare settings. Self-reported healthcare discrimination was associated with an increased hazard of stroke or MI (hazard ratio [HR]=1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]= 1.10-1.39) over the entire follow-up. The hazard is strongest over a shorter 2-year follow-up (HR=1.46, 95% CI=1.17-1.82), and the hazard plateaus after a 5-year follow-up (HR=1.23, 95% CI=1.05=1.44). Conclusions: Even after adjusting for sociodemographic factors and health status, participants who reported experiencing discrimination in healthcare were at increased risk of stroke or MI over short-term and long-term follow-up.

CirculationVol. 152(Suppl_3)
Johns Hopkins University (US), Duke University (US), Southwestern Medical Center (US), Southwestern Medical Center (US), The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 51%
Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.