4.5 Article

Older Adults in the United States Have Worse Cardiometabolic Health Compared to England

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geronb/gbac023

关键词

Body mass index; Cardiometabolic risk; Cardiovascular disease; Obesity

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [P30AG012846]
  2. Leverhulme Trust
  3. European Research Council [ERC-2021CoG-101002587]
  4. University of Michigan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are significant differences in health between older adults in the United States and England, including higher prevalence of diabetes, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high inflammation in the United States. Although extreme obesity is more common in the United States, differences in body mass index (BMI) cannot fully explain the cross-country differences in measured biological risk.
Explanations for lagging life expectancy in the United States compared to other high-income countries have focused largely on deaths of despair, but attention has also shifted to the role of stalling improvements in cardiovascular disease and the obesity epidemic. Using harmonized data from the U.S. Health and Retirement Study and English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, we assess differences in self-reported and objective measures of health, among older adults in the United States and England and explore whether the differences in body mass index (BMI) documented between the United States and England explain the U.S. disadvantage. Older adults in the United States have a much higher prevalence of diabetes, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high inflammation (C-reactive protein) compared to English adults. While the distribution of BMI is shifted to the right in the United States with more people falling into extreme obesity categories, these differences do not explain the cross-country differences in measured biological risk. We conclude by considering how country differences in health may have affected the burden of coronavirus disease 2019 mortality in both countries.

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

4.5
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