Table 5.

Linear regression for association between Everyday Discrimination Scale depressive symptomatology (CES-D) by coding approach, African American Women’s Heart and Health Study, Northern California, 2012–2013 (n=207)

	Model 4: number of EDS ‘Situations’ ever experienced		Model 5: ‘Frequency’ of EDS experiences (Likert summary score)		Model 6: annual ‘Chronicity’ of EDS experiences
	Model 1a: unadjusted	Model 1b: fully adjusted	Model 2a: unadjusted	Model 2b: fully adjusted	Model 3a: unadjusted	Model 3b: fully adjusted
EDS*	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)	β (95% CI)
Moderate	2.74 (0.65 to 4.82)	1.16 (−0.69 to 3.01)	3.15 (1.14 to 5.17)	1.75 (−0.05 to 3.54)	3.47 (1.45 to 5.49)	2.01 (0.21 to 3.81)
High	3.89 (1.90 to 5.88)	2.37 (0.63 to 4.11)	4.75 (2.72 to 6.79)	3.03 (1.23 to 4.83)	4.96 (2.93 to 6.98)	2.85 (1.10 to 4.69)
Constant	9.72 (8.40 to 11.04)	8.75 (6.88 to 10.61)	9.13 (7.72 to 10.54)	8.39 (6.50 to 10.28)	8.89 (7.45 to 10.32)	8.34 (6.42 to 10.25)
P for trend†	0.000	0.008	0.000	0.001	0.000	0.003

Model a: Unadjusted.

Model b: Adjusts for age, neuroticism, marital/partnership status, education (≤high school [HS] diploma) and employment status.

^*Referent group=‘low’ EDS.

^†P value (two sided) associated with beta coefficient when EDS tertiles are modelled ordinally (vs categorically).

CES-D, Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression; EDS, Everyday Discrimination Scale.