ライフサイエンスコーパス: socioeconomic status

1 , birth country, English fluency, education, socioeconomic status).

2 to 5.31] in the highest quartile of parental socioeconomic status).

3 t in the home (likely a surrogate for higher socioeconomic status).

4 roups, rural residents, and persons of lower socioeconomic status.

5 cation by sex, race/ethnicity, and childhood socioeconomic status.

6 ral population (1:5) based on birth year and socioeconomic status.

7 women, and individuals with lower and higher socioeconomic status.

8 cost protection were also contextualised by socioeconomic status.

9 ousehold consumption spending as a proxy for socioeconomic status.

10 pulmonary resuscitation, hospital level, and socioeconomic status.

11 for year of diagnosis, age, sex, region, and socioeconomic status.

12 were most evident among groups with a lower socioeconomic status.

13 an-American women and has been linked to low socioeconomic status.

14 its association with a measure of area-level socioeconomic status.

15 The burden of obesity differs by socioeconomic status.

16 ity; these associations were not modified by socioeconomic status.

17 protection, especially for people of a lower socioeconomic status.

18 usceptibility was also associated with lower socioeconomic status.

19 nected to a survey of individuals with a low socioeconomic status.

20 0.58 to 1.49) with additional adjustment for socioeconomic status.

21 d their variation over time by age, sex, and socioeconomic status.

22 These scores were independent of socioeconomic status.

23 duals, a decrease that correlated with lower socioeconomic status.

24 disproportionately impacted patients of low socioeconomic status.

25 patients of non-Caucasian race or with lower socioeconomic status.

26 , and processed food than individuals of low socioeconomic status.

27 these resources are distributed by community socioeconomic status.

28 nting for differences in racial identity and socioeconomic status.

29 rth, with outcomes improving with increasing socioeconomic status.

30 ial/ethnic minorities and individuals of low socioeconomic status.

31 nority race and ethnicity, and disadvantaged socioeconomic status.

32 associated with Indigenous ancestry and low socioeconomic status.

33 tent significant associations with household socioeconomic status.

34 Oral health status is correlated with socioeconomic status.

35 ention for ethnically diverse women with low socioeconomic status.

36 getables, fish, and fibre than those of high socioeconomic status.

37 moking, followed by physical inactivity then socioeconomic status.

38 s with cardiovascular health might depend on socioeconomic status.

39 g factors and adjusted for comorbidities and socioeconomic status.

40 dence of effect modification by age, sex, or socioeconomic status.

41 in non-white ethnicities and people of lower socioeconomic status.

42 risk factor for exposure being low household socioeconomic status.

43 and the Economic Innovations Group to assess socioeconomic status.

44 gender, age, height, country of origin, and socioeconomic status.

45 s positively related to indicators of higher socioeconomic status.

46 ongest links being mother's education (18%), socioeconomic status (13%), and weight (15%).

47 d boys when living in households with higher socioeconomic status (2.87 points [0.27 to 5.47] in the

48 hospitalizations, 35% were in women with low socioeconomic status, 20% with underlying conditions, an

49 general cognitive ability ( 3.5%) and family socioeconomic status ( 7%).

50 d 74 years (83.3%), female (71.9%), of lower socioeconomic status (92.1%), with a diabetes duration o

51 her the harmful effects of alcohol differ by socioeconomic status, accounting for alcohol consumption

52 Socioeconomic status affects surgical outcomes; however,

53 lp to better understand how contextual-level socioeconomic status affects the burden of sepsis-relate

54 Socioeconomic status affects the risk of multimorbidity,

55 for maternal body mass index, delivery year, socioeconomic status, age, parity, and comorbid conditio

56 h as use of bed nets and antimalarial drugs, socioeconomic status, age, sex, travel history, mosquito

57 onsistent definitions and categorizations of socioeconomic status, aggregated individual socioeconomi

58 Individuals with lower socioeconomic status also had significantly higher (210)

59 s and geographical locations irrespective of socioeconomic status, although it is more-prevalent in s

60 t, after adjusting for confounders including socioeconomic status and access to fast food in the comm

61 vice, higher Charlson comorbidity index, low socioeconomic status and admission at high volume center

62 n institutions (n = 23) as compared to their socioeconomic status and age peers raised in biological

63 Participants' socioeconomic status and clinical, sanitation, and food

64 ]; Asians, 0.34 [0.24 to 0.45]); control for socioeconomic status and CPS did not change these result

65 The relationships between socioeconomic status and domestically acquired salmonell

66 Both populations differed in terms of socioeconomic status and environmental determinants, suc

67 city, as well as by social factors including socioeconomic status and geographic region.

68 nd common classifications of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and geographical region.

69 39), from whom we obtained information about socioeconomic status and health status in 2010 (i.e., pr

70 Differences in socioeconomic status and health-care access play a key r

71 Lower socioeconomic status and higher severity of illness are

72 revalence can be observed in women with high socioeconomic status and in children.

73 ncreased rapidly in counties with the lowest socioeconomic status and in rural counties, most deaths

74 Associations between socioeconomic status and increasing burden of mortality

75 Overall, maternal BMI, along with maternal socioeconomic status and lifestyle factors in the second

76 t, whereas odds were increased by least poor socioeconomic status and living in an urban or periurban

77 Persons with low socioeconomic status and nonwhite persons in the United

78 ly adversity, in the form of abuse, neglect, socioeconomic status and other adverse experiences, is a

79 standing of the complex relationship between socioeconomic status and pediatric health outcomes for A

80 Worse socioeconomic status and poor oral hygiene effectiveness

81 ional hazards regression models adjusted for socioeconomic status and potential risk factors were use

82 rogeneous area with substantial variation in socioeconomic status and prevalence of obesity.

83 e present findings suggest the importance of socioeconomic status and psychosocial factors on gingiva

84 Differences in socioeconomic status and receipt of disproportionate sha

85 Data on childhood socioeconomic status and separation from parents were ba

86 ips between neighborhood food environment or socioeconomic status and serum phosphorus level among pa

87 dels adjusted for age, sex, chronic disease, socioeconomic status and smoking social integration was

88 iverse Hispanic population and suggests that socioeconomic status and structural factors, such as res

89 oth across countries and within countries by socioeconomic status and that may have important implica

90 PCMC varied by socioeconomic status and type of facility in three setti

91 n 2000 and 2015 occurred across low and high socioeconomic status and urban and rural counties among

92 lities were mostly affected by neighbourhood socioeconomic status and wealth index.

93 terns were robust to alternative measures of socioeconomic status and were independent of age, sex, r

94 leton pregnancies of women of high or middle socioeconomic status and without known environmental con

95 The survival of patients with different socioeconomic statuses and bone metastasis statuses was

96 tient-level factors (including age, sex, and socioeconomic status) and practice-level factors (includ

97 maternal education, higher birth weight, and socioeconomic status) and risk factors (maternal anaemia

98 Psychological and personality factors, socioeconomic status, and brain properties all contribut

99 according to sex, age, ethnicity group, and socioeconomic status, and compare seroprevalence estimat

100 r sex, age, genetic components of ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and depressive symptoms, we found

101 of HDP in minority women and those of lower socioeconomic status, and dietary patterns during pregna

102 ntemporary temporal trends according to sex, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity are unknown.

103 anagement trends and variations by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity were described from

104 4 years), stratified by sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geography (including the 50 st

105 Older age, lower socioeconomic status, and having at least 1 high-risk fa

106 abortion, adjusting for age, calendar year, socioeconomic status, and history of childbirth, mental

107 ocioeconomic status than in those with lower socioeconomic status, and in adults than in children.

108 ities in control of CVD risk factors by sex, socioeconomic status, and level of disability.

109 captured association of head size with sex, socioeconomic status, and mathematics and reading perfor

110 education level, marriage length, polygamy, socioeconomic status, and months between intervention an

111 hood adversity (e.g., traumatic life events, socioeconomic status, and parenting quality).

112 hospitalisation) and mortality, by age, sex, socioeconomic status, and place of diagnosis (ie, hospit

113 c status surpasses that of those with higher socioeconomic status, and plateaus in prevalence can be

114 otential confounders, including age, gender, socioeconomic status, and presence of comorbidities.

115 d by high economic activity, relatively high socioeconomic status, and risky sexual behaviour.

116 ounger maternal age at cancer diagnosis, low socioeconomic status, and rural residence among mothers

117 When adjusted for baseline age, socioeconomic status, and self-rated general health stat

118 ers of uptake, including vaccine confidence, socioeconomic status, and sources of trust, were determi

119 ity values of private gardens in relation to socioeconomic status, and the decline in sizes of privat

120 egional or cultural contexts, insecurity, or socioeconomic status, and they may be even more prevalen

121 stratified by ethnic group, age group, sex, socioeconomic status, and time period (<1998, 1999-2013,

122 usted for sex, age, smoking status, obesity, socioeconomic status, and time period by use of age-peri

123 y-unit level, using education as a proxy for socioeconomic status, and whether any geographical patte

124 nce of these indicators and correlation with socioeconomic status are consistent with well recognised

125 re likely contributors to these trends, with socioeconomic status as a likely environmental influence

126 ah, revealed a dietary divergence related to socioeconomic status as measured by cost of living, hous

127 Lower socioeconomic status, assessed using a summary measure,

128 we show that being female and higher family socioeconomic status at birth are strong and consistent

129 ciation between life expectancy at birth and socioeconomic status at the subcity-unit level, using ed

130 New adult SNAP recipients had higher socioeconomic status, better self-reported health, and g

131 lowing risk factors were analyzed: age, sex, socioeconomic status, birth weight, maternal age at birt

132 Findings held controlling for objective socioeconomic status both statistically and by cotwin de

133 nal series analysis of obesity prevalence by socioeconomic status by use of national health surveys d

134 onsidered confounders (age, race, sex, site, socioeconomic status, cardiovascular disease risk factor

135 nd brain-based responses in parents with low socioeconomic status change when rebates and lower taxes

136 After adjustment for demographics, socioeconomic status, comorbidities, predisposing medica

137 Ethnicity, socioeconomic status, comorbidity and disability were in

138 e disproportionately felt by persons of poor socioeconomic status, contributing to health inequities.

139 ospital admission, pharmaceutical claim, and socioeconomic status databases.

140 ression models adjusting for age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, date of enrollment, and comorbidit

141 ges were also assessed in subgroups based on socioeconomic status, defined by Socio-Economic Indexes

142 istory of allergic diseases, household size, socioeconomic status, delivery mode, antibiotic and prob

143 broad differences between countries such as socioeconomic status, demographic structure, rural vs. u

144 and after multivariable adjustment for age, socioeconomic status, depressive symptoms, health-relate

145 n the over 50s and lowest in people of lower socioeconomic status, despite a higher rate of primary c

146 Older age, lower socioeconomic status, diabetes, and cigarette smoking we

147 Older age, female sex, lower socioeconomic status, diabetes, systemic comorbidities,

148 verity (asthma duration, age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status) did not associate with exacerbatio

149 There is a need to understand socioeconomic status differences for risk factors for do

150 ssociated with participant sex (female), low socioeconomic status (education and income), and several

151 ipants were assessed for three indicators of socioeconomic status (education, occupational position,

152 lyses were adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, education, health behaviours, empl

153 ighbourhoods in which individuals with a low socioeconomic status encountered real-world reminders of

154 Socioeconomic status (family income, parent's schooling,

155 cts of maternal education, birth weight, and socioeconomic status for developmental outcomes but also

156 We also extracted data on socioeconomic status from the Index of Multiple Deprivat

157 Although access to care and socioeconomic status have been traditional explanations

158 Composite measures of community-level socioeconomic status have the potential to be utilized t

159 Age, denture use, socioeconomic status, health status, and health behavior

160 Each patient's socioeconomic status (high/low) was determined by their

161 ion, older age, single marital status, lower socioeconomic status, higher PSA level, T1 and N0 stage,

162 tly of age, sex, educational attainment, and socioeconomic status, higher worthwhile ratings are asso

163 Despite lower socioeconomic status, Hispanics in the United States par

164 (not in children <5 years), time period, and socioeconomic status (household wealth) quintile for HIV

165 efits associated with the presence of a high-socioeconomic status immigrant group reduce xenophobic a

166 migration in an era of growing flows of high-socioeconomic status immigrants to the United States and

167 g emotional trauma, physical trauma, and low socioeconomic status in childhood were associated with i

168 65 years of age and older, and indicators of socioeconomic status including poverty, education, incom

169 han in white women after adjustment for age, socioeconomic status (income and education), and psychol

170 score-matched cohort based on demographics, socioeconomic status (income based), clinical comorbidit

171 ective cohort studies with information about socioeconomic status, indexed by occupational position,

172 In multistate models, occupation was the socioeconomic status indicator that was most strongly as

173 Socioeconomic status indicators did not affect transitio

174 Socioeconomic status, infant formula feeding, and sugar-

175 ients with increased utilization differed by socioeconomic status, insurance type, and severity of il

176 ecific factors, including age, axial length, socioeconomic status, IOL model, and postoperative stero

177 elow the federal poverty line, and thus, low socioeconomic status is an important social determinant

178 Socioeconomic status is associated with differences in r

179 patients with good oral hygiene and moderate socioeconomic status is not significantly associated wit

180 Prior research has shown that low socioeconomic status leads to less treatment and worse o

181 ovascular risk factors, serological studies, socioeconomic status, left ventricular structure, and me

182 levels were observed among children from all socioeconomic status levels in this cohort.

183 clinical measurements and supplement data on socioeconomic status, lifestyle, behaviors, and environm

184 g efforts in communities where people of low socioeconomic status live and work would increase access

185 Asian or Pacific Islander, better socioeconomic status, lived in urban areas, married mari

186 nformation about individual characteristics, socioeconomic status, living conditions, lifestyle, and

187 Minority patients with lower socioeconomic status (lower level of income and nonpriva

188 Individual adulthood socioeconomic status mediated the associations.

189 ts were interviewed (data collected included socioeconomic status, medical history, alcohol consumpti

190 education level, marriage length, polygamy, socioeconomic status, months between intervention and en

191 vary by race and ethnicity and neighborhood socioeconomic status (nSES).

192 al confounding variables, including maternal socioeconomic status, obstetric complications, obesity,

193 Lower socioeconomic status of a municipality, as indicated by

194 of-pocket drug spending, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status of participants, which prevents ana

195 zed in 1) the negative impact of detrimental socioeconomic status on oral health changes over time, 2

196 These findings highlight the impact of socioeconomic status on surgical outcomes and should be

197 hen we account for individual differences in socioeconomic status or intelligence.

198 nd overestimate risk in patients with higher socioeconomic status or who have been closely engaged wi

199 rtain racial/ethnic groups, those with lower socioeconomic status or with chronic inflammatory diseas

200 latitude, independent of race or ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or body mass index.

201 ut the USA regardless of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or rurality.

202 levels were hs-CRP (P < 0.001) and education socioeconomic status (P = 0.042).

203 any differences in cardiovascular disease by socioeconomic status parallel differences in risk factor

204 leep duration, cognitive function, and age), socioeconomic status (parental education), and behaviora

205 s study is to assess the relationships among socioeconomic status, pattern of dental visits, self-est

206 Analyses adjusted for sex, age, family socioeconomic status, polygenic risk score for cognitive

207 teins were more common in the diets of lower socioeconomic status populations than were plant-derived

208 Socioeconomic status (primary outcome) was assessed at a

209 Here we show that the mere feeling of lower socioeconomic status relative to others stimulates appet

210 mal descriptive study by race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, rurality, and geography has not be

211 n maternal and paternal education, household socioeconomic status, sanitation conditions, maternal he

212 ocial disadvantage at the home (e.g., family socioeconomic status), school (e.g., average levels of a

213 ontally evaluated and regularly assessed for socioeconomic status, serum lipids, high-sensitivity C-r

214 difference: +7.4 percentage-points) and low socioeconomic status-serving (1.38[1.35-1.40]; +7.3% per

215 eight (OR(adj) 1.61, 95% CI [1.36-1.92]) and socioeconomic status (SES) < 5th centile (OR(adj) 1.23,

216 The relationships between socioeconomic status (SES) and domestically-acquired sal

217 Socioeconomic status (SES) and education (EDU) are pheno

218 ty, we assessed the relative contribution of socioeconomic status (SES) and genome-wide polygenic sco

219 ences and (2) considers mediating effects of socioeconomic status (SES) and measures of small vessel

220 The association between low socioeconomic status (SES) and obesity is well documente

221 ce exists regarding the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and outcomes after kidney tra

222 the gut microbiome, focusing specifically on socioeconomic status (SES) and race/ethnicity.

223 epregnancy BMI (P < 0.001), and lower family socioeconomic status (SES) at time of birth (P = 0.001),

224 in early learning experiences across diverse socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, particularly whe

225 nerations, particularly for those from lower-socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds.

226 cknesses in all neighborhoods categorized by socioeconomic status (SES) between 1988-1992 and 1998-20

227 ese adaptations under conditions such as low socioeconomic status (SES) can have negative consequence

228 and ethnic minorities and people with lower socioeconomic status (SES) face structural, health syste

229 e on cognition for children raised in higher socioeconomic status (SES) families, including recent pr

230 ve outcomes.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Childhood socioeconomic status (SES) has been associated with deve

231 Low socioeconomic status (SES) has been previously shown to

232 relationships at higher and lower levels of socioeconomic status (SES) have been diverging steadily

233 Childhood socioeconomic status (SES) impacts cognitive development

234 The role of patient socioeconomic status (SES) in transplantation outcomes i

235 Genetic factors and socioeconomic status (SES) inequalities play a large rol

236 Socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with asthma mor

237 Although low socioeconomic status (SES) is related to poor glycemic c

238 nalyses (n = 65), we examined how gender and socioeconomic status (SES) may influence brain responses

239 Owing to the known association of socioeconomic status (SES) on PTSD, a multivariable MR w

240 es in gene methylation associated with lower socioeconomic status (SES) predict changes in risk-relat

241 ith higher proportions of nonwhite and lower-socioeconomic status (SES) residents.

242 is ongoing debate about whether education or socioeconomic status (SES) should be inputs into cardiov

243 ssion, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) using the Index of Multiple D

244 Low socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with both cata

245 ual- and neighborhood-level life-course (LC) socioeconomic status (SES) with incident dementia in the

246 characteristics and markers of neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) with screen-detected SARS-CoV

247 contribution of environmental risk factors (socioeconomic status (SES), air pollution and climate) i

248 ry artery disease, lower intelligence, lower socioeconomic status (SES), and poorer self-rated health

249 tina surgery, level of systemic comorbidity, socioeconomic status (SES), and rural versus urban resid

250 Many behavioral and psychological effects of socioeconomic status (SES), beyond those presented by Pe

251 ures analyzed included the association among socioeconomic status (SES), distance to a transplant cen

252 ictors covering demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status (SES), electronic medical records,

253 Family and neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES), measured at baseline, were a

254 Socioeconomic status (SES), often conceptualized as inco

255 racial/ethnic minority backgrounds with low socioeconomic status (SES), seen in in- or outpatient se

256 Independent of socioeconomic status (SES), the quantity of CTs was uniq

257 uster of behaviours is associated with lower socioeconomic status (SES), which we call "the behaviour

258 Human beings differ in their socioeconomic status (SES), with accompanying difference

259 Socioeconomic status (SES)-education, income level, and

260 HIV+) compared to age-, sex-, ethnicity- and socioeconomic status (SES)-matched HIV-negative controls

261 tpartum mood of those living among different socioeconomic status (SES).

262 try, probably reflecting migration driven by socioeconomic status (SES).

263 attainment is widely used as a surrogate for socioeconomic status (SES).

264 ypes, many of which are also associated with socioeconomic status (SES).

265 osed, such as communities of color and lower socioeconomic status (SES).

266 ghest among Whites and among those of higher socioeconomic status (SES).

267 nce of present-oriented thinking among lower-socioeconomic-status (SES) groups and overlook key socia

268 wever, if this assumption is violated (e.g., socioeconomic status [SES] and outdoor physical activiti

269 justed for eight subject-level indicators of socioeconomic status, seven contextual covariates, ozone

270 th, postmenstrual age at scan, maternal age, socioeconomic status, sex, and number of days on parente

271 ons, as well as age, sex, ethnic background, socioeconomic status, smoking (for bladder and lung canc

272 us, geographical region, childhood and adult socioeconomic status, social and leisure activity, smoki

273 Similar patterns were seen across the socioeconomic status spectrum in the Salt Lake Valley.

274 RYO]), in the total sample and stratified by socioeconomic status subgroups.

275 Controlling for parental IQ or socioeconomic status substantially attenuated or elimina

276 we show that, among individuals with a lower socioeconomic status, such local exposure to inequality

277 prevalence of obesity among those with lower socioeconomic status surpasses that of those with higher

278 ailed data on demographics, diet, lifestyle, socioeconomic status, temperature of drinking beverages,

279 y in women than in men, in those with higher socioeconomic status than in those with lower socioecono

280 on of physical multimorbidity in relation to socioeconomic status; the association between physical m

281 ication, linking lower cognitive ability and socioeconomic status to lower cortical thickness, area,

282 utions of neighborhood food availability and socioeconomic status to phosphorus control in patients r

283 whom 47514 (5%) immigrated since 1985, sex, socioeconomic status, urban (vs rural) residence, and ca

284 We assessed socioeconomic status using education and a household wea

285 Socioeconomic status was also linked to toothbrushing fr

286 Low socioeconomic status was associated with a 2.1-year redu

287 Higher area-level socioeconomic status was associated with higher life exp

288 In general, higher socioeconomic status was associated with higher phthalat

289 lation between alcohol-attributable harm and socioeconomic status was investigated for four measures

290 Overall, neighbourhood socioeconomic status, wealth index, toilet types and sou

291 ardiovascular disease and common measures of socioeconomic status-wealth and education-differ among h

292 lder age, male sex, nonwhite race, and lower socioeconomic status were independently associated with

293 Race, age, and socioeconomic status were not independent predictors.

294 ome college; those of low vs. high childhood socioeconomic status who received an associate's or bach

295 ential effect modifiers (e.g., age, sex, and socioeconomic status), with adjustment for day of the we

296 tionally and in municipalities stratified by socioeconomic status, with a synthetic control approach

297 more frequently of Black race, from a lower socioeconomic status, with higher comorbidity, and admit

298 for maternal factors, birth parameters, and socioeconomic status, with results pooled using meta-ana

299 to the income, emphasizing the importance of socioeconomic status within the personality space of chr

300 l deprivation history, smoking, drinking and socioeconomic status, working-age men in fast-privatised