Search

Background: Evidence on the effects of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage on dementia risk in racially and ethically diverse populations is limited. Our objective was to evaluate the relative extent to which neighborhood disadvantage accounts for racial/ethnic variation in dementia incidence rates. Secondarily, we evaluated the spatial relationship between neighborhood disadvantage and dementia risk. Methods: In this retrospective study using electronic health records (EHR) at two regional health systems in Northeast Ohio, participants included 253,421 patients aged >60 years who had an outpatient primary care visit between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015. The date of the first qualifying visit served as the study baseline. Cumulative incidence of composite dementia outcome, defined as EHR‐documented dementia diagnosis or dementia‐related death, stratified by neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation (as measured by Area Deprivation Index) was determined by competing‐risk regression analysis, with non‐dementia‐related death as the competing risk. Fine‐Gray sub‐distribution hazard ratios were determined for neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation, race/ethnicity, and clinical risk factors. The degree to which neighborhood socioeconomic position accounted for racial/ethnic disparities in the incidence of composite dementia outcome was evaluated via mediation analysis with Poisson rate models. Results: Increasing neighborhood disadvantage was associated with increased risk of EHR‐documented dementia diagnosis or dementia‐related death (most vs. least disadvantaged ADI quintile HR = 1.76, 95% confidence interval = 1.69–1.84) after adjusting for age and sex. The effect of neighborhood disadvantage on this composite dementia outcome remained after accounting for known medical risk factors of dementia. Mediation analysis indicated that neighborhood disadvantage accounted for 34% and 29% of the elevated risk for composite dementia outcome in Hispanic and Black patients compared to White patients, respectively. Conclusion: Neighborhood disadvantage is related to the risk of EHR‐documented dementia diagnosis or dementia‐related death and accounts for a portion of racial/ethnic differences in dementia burden, even after adjustment for clinically important confounders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Healthcare systems are increasingly investing in approaches to address social determinants of health and health disparities. Such initiatives dovetail with certain approaches to neighborhood development, such as the EcoDistrict standard for community development, that prioritize both ecologically and socially sustainable neighborhoods. However, healthcare system and community development initiatives can be untethered from the preferences and lived realities of residents in the very neighborhoods upon which they focus. Utilizing the go‐along approach to collecting qualitative data in situ, we interviewed 19 adults to delineate residents' community health perspectives and priorities. Findings reveal health priorities distinct from clinical outcomes, with residents emphasizing social connectedness, competing intra‐ and interneighborhood perceptions that potentially thwart social connectedness, and a neighborhood emplacement of agency, dignity, and self‐worth. Priorities of healthcare systems and community members alike must be accounted for to optimize efforts that promote health and social well‐being by being valid and meaningful to the community of focus. Highlights: Health system investments in social determinants are often untethered from neighborhood preferences.Go‐along interviews efficiently ascertain community priorities for neighborhood transformation.Neighborhood residents articulate social connectedness as a key meaning of health.Participants described neighborhood emplacement of self‐worth from internalizing outsiders' views.Community development interventions should include resident voices in planning and evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk across heterogeneous populations is needed for effective primary prevention. Little is known about the performance of standard cardiovascular risk factors in older adults. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) risk model, as well as the underlying cardiovascular risk factors, among adults older than 65 years. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort derived from a regional referral system's electronic medical records. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 25 349 patients who were 65 years or older at study baseline (date of the first outpatient lipid panel taken between 2007 and 2010). MEASUREMENTS: Exposures of interest were traditional cardiovascular risk factors, as defined by inclusion in the PCE model. The primary outcome was major ASCVD events, defined as a composite of myocardial infarctions, stroke, and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: The PCE and internally estimated models produced similar risk distributions for white men aged 65 to 74 years. For all other groups, PCE predictions were generally lower than those of the internal models, particularly for African Americans. Discrimination of the PCE was poor for all age groups, with concordance index (95% confidence interval) estimates of 0.62 (0.60‐0.64), 0.56 (0.54‐0.57), and 0.52 (0.49‐0.54) among patients aged 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and 85 years and older, respectively. Reestimating relationships within these age groups resulted in better calibration but negligible improvements in discrimination. Blood pressure, total cholesterol, and diabetes either were not associated at all or had inverse associations in the older age groups. CONCLUSION: Traditional clinical risk factors for cardiovascular disease failed to accurately characterize risk in a contemporary population of Medicare‐aged patients. Among those aged 85 years and older, some traditional risk factors were not associated with ASCVD events. Better risk models are needed to appropriately inform treatment decision making for the growing population of older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:754–761, 2020 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Epilepsy is a common neurological condition that is often associated with stigmatizing attitudes and negative stereotypes among the general public. This randomized controlled trial ( RCT) tested two new communication approaches targeting epilepsy stigma versus an education-alone approach. Methods Two brief stigma-reduction videos were developed, informed by community stakeholder input; one highlighted role competency in people with epilepsy; the other highlighted social inclusion of people with epilepsy. A control video was also developed. A Web-based survey using a prospective RCT design compared effects of experimental videos and control on acceptability, perceived impact, epilepsy knowledge, and epilepsy stigma. Epilepsy knowledge and stigma were measured with the Epilepsy Knowledge Questionnaire ( EKQ) and Attitudes and Beliefs about Living with Epilepsy ( ABLE), respectively. Results A total of 295 participants completed the study. Mean age was 23.1 ( standard deviation = 3.27) years; 59.0% were male, and 71.4% were white. Overall, respondents felt videos impacted their epilepsy attitudes. EKQ scores were similar across videos, with a trend for higher knowledge in experimental videos versus control (p = 0.06). The role competency and control videos were associated with slightly better perceived impact on attitudes. There were no differences between videos on ABLE scores (p = 0.568). There were subgroup differences suggesting that men, younger individuals, whites, and those with personal epilepsy experience had more stigmatizing attitudes. Significance This RCT tested communication strategies to improve knowledge and attitudes about epilepsy. Although this initial effort will require follow-up, we have demonstrated the acceptability, feasibility, and potential of novel communication strategies to target epilepsy stigma, and a Web-based approach for assessing them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Traumatic Stress is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)