4.6 Article

Racial/ethnic disparities in disease burden and costs related to exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the United States: an exploratory analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 34-43

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.11.024

关键词

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals; Disease burden; Economic costs; Obesity; Neurodevelopment; Reproductive health

资金

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [R01 ES022972] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Studies have documented disparities in exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDC), but no studies have investigated potential implications for racial/ethnic disparities in chronic disease and associated costs. Our objective was to examine EDC levels in the US population according to race/ethnicity and to quantify disease burden and associated costs. Study Design and Setting: EDC exposure levels in 2007-2010 were obtained from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. The associated disease burden and costs for 12 exposure response relationships were determined for non-Hispanic Whites, non -Hispanic Blacks, Mexican Americans, Other Hispanics, and Other/Multicultural. Results: EDC exposure levels and associated burden of disease and costs were higher in non-Hispanic Blacks ($56.8 billion; 16.5% of total costs) and Mexican Americans ($50.1 billion; 14.6%) compared with their proportion of the total population (12.6% and 13.5%, respectively). Associated costs among non -Hispanic whites comprised 52.3% of total costs ($179.8 billion) although they comprise 66.1% of the US population. These disparities are driven by generally higher exposure to persistent pesticides and flame retardants among non-Hispanic blacks and Mexican Americans. Conclusion: Our estimates suggest that racial/ethnic disparities in chronic diseases in the US may be because of chemical exposures and are an important tool to inform policies that address such disparities. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据