IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/199686101370-1378_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Racial discrimination and blood pressure: The CARDIA study of young black and white adults

Author

Listed:
  • Krieger, N.
  • Sidney, S.

Abstract

Objectives. This study examined associations between blood pressure and self-reported experiences of racial discrimination and responses to unfair treatment. Methods. Survey data were collected in year 7 (1992/93) of the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study, a prospective multisite community-based investigation. Participants included 831 Black men, 1143 Black women, 1006 White men, and 1106 White women 25 to 37 years old. Results. Systolic blood pressure among working-class Black adults reporting that they typically accepted unfair treatment and had experienced racial discrimination in none of seven situations was about 7 mm Hg higher than among those reporting that they challenged unfair treatment and experienced racial discrimination in one or two of the situations. Among professional Black adults, systolic blood pressure was 9 to 10 mm Hg lower among those reporting that they typically challenged unfair treatment and had not experienced racial discrimination. Black-White differences in blood pressure were substantially reduced by taking into account reported experiences of racial discrimination and responses to unfair treatment. Conclusions. Research on racial/ethnic distributions of blood pressure should take into account how discrimination may harm health.

Suggested Citation

  • Krieger, N. & Sidney, S., 1996. "Racial discrimination and blood pressure: The CARDIA study of young black and white adults," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 86(10), pages 1370-1378.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1996:86:10:1370-1378_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1996:86:10:1370-1378_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.