Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Feb;10(2):e002547.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.002547. Epub 2017 Feb 22.

Neighborhood Differences in Post-Stroke Mortality

Affiliations

Neighborhood Differences in Post-Stroke Mortality

Theresa L Osypuk et al. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Post-stroke mortality is higher among residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods, but it is not known whether neighborhood inequalities are specific to stroke survival or similar to mortality patterns in the general population. We hypothesized that neighborhood disadvantage would predict higher poststroke mortality, and neighborhood effects would be relatively larger for stroke patients than for individuals with no history of stroke.

Methods and results: Health and Retirement Study participants aged ≥50 years without stroke at baseline (n=15 560) were followed ≤12 years for incident stroke (1715 events over 159 286 person-years) and mortality (5325 deaths). Baseline neighborhood characteristics included objective measures based on census tracts (family income, poverty, deprivation, residential stability, and percent white, black, or foreign-born) and self-reported neighborhood social ties. Using Cox proportional hazard models, we compared neighborhood mortality effects for people with versus people without a history of stroke. Most neighborhood variables predicted mortality for both stroke patients and the general population in demographic-adjusted models. Neighborhood percent white predicted lower mortality for stroke survivors (hazard ratio, 0.75 for neighborhoods in highest 25th percentile versus below, 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.91) more strongly than for stroke-free adults (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.02; P=0.04 for stroke-by-neighborhood interaction). No other neighborhood characteristic had different effects for people with versus without stroke. Neighborhood-mortality associations emerged within 3 months after stroke, when associations were often stronger than among stroke-free individuals.

Conclusions: Neighborhood characteristics predict mortality, but most effects are similar for individuals without stroke. Eliminating disparities in stroke survival may require addressing pathways that are not specific to traditional poststroke care.

Keywords: community; mortality; neighborhood; social support; socioeconomic factors; stroke.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Main Effects of Neighborhood Context on Hazard Ratio of Mortality
Estimates, confidence intervals, and p-values reported in Appendix Table 2. All models adjusted for stroke status. Model 1 adjusted for demographic variables. Model 2 adjusted for demographics plus CVD risk factors. Model 3 adjusted for demographics plus SEP variables. Model 4 adjusted for demographic, CVD, and SEP variables. * Neighborhood family income and neighborhood deprivation are modeled in quartiles modeled ordinally; hazard ratio models a change from 4th vs. 1st quartiles.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stratum-Specific Estimates of Neighborhood Context on Hazard Ratios of Mortality within Strata of Time Since Stroke
* P<.05 # P<.10, where P denotes the P-value for the interaction (compared to never stroke). All Interaction P-values, and stratum specific estimates and confidence intervals for all neighborhood variables are reported in Appendix Table 4. Model 4 adjusted for demographic, CVD risk factors, and SEP variables, in addition to modeling the effect modification of neighborhood context with stroke status.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Potential mechanisms linking neighborhood context to survival.

References

    1. Lackland DT, Roccella EJ, Deutsch AF, Fornage M, George MG, Howard G, Kissela BM, Kittner SJ, Lichtman JH, Lisabeth LD, Schwamm LH, Smith EE, Towfighi A. Factors influencing the decline in stroke mortality: A statement from the american heart association/american stroke association. Stroke. 2014;45:315–353. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pahigiannis K, Waddy S, Koroshetz W. Toward solutions for minimizing disparities in stroke: National institute of neurological disorders and stroke update. Stroke. 2013;44:e129–130. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thrift AG, Dewey HM, Sturm JW, Paul SL, Gilligan AK, Srikanth VK, Macdonell RAL, McNeil JJ, Macleod MR, Donnan GA. Greater incidence of both fatal and nonfatal strokes in disadvantaged areas: The northeast melbourne stroke incidence study. Stroke. 2006;37:877–882. - PubMed
    1. Menec VH, Shooshtari S, Nowicki S, Fournier S. Does the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic status and health outcomes persist into very old age? A population-based study. J Aging Health. 2010;22:27–47. - PubMed
    1. Brown P, Guy M, Broad J. Individual socio-economic status, community socio-economic status and stroke in new zealand: A case control study. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:1174–1188. - PubMed

MeSH terms