Table 3.
Assessment of effect measure modification of adjusted prevalence ratios* (aPR) for ideal or intermediate versus poor CVH**
| Psychosocial risk measure (Potential effect measure modifier) |
High versus low neighborhood social cohesion and ideal or intermediate versus poor CVH by level of psychosocial risk measure | Medium versus low neighborhood social cohesion and ideal or intermediate versus poor CVH by level of psychosocial risk measure | p† | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| aPR | 95% CI | aPR | 95% CI | |||
| Education at Exam1 | ||||||
| College degree or more | 1.05 | (1.00-1.10) | 1.04 | (0.99–1.09) | < 0.01 | |
| High school or some college | 1.05 | (0.98–1.12) | 1.03 | (0.96–1.09) | ||
| Less than high school | 0.77 | (0.67–0.88) | 0.98 | (0.89–1.08) | ||
| Employment at Exam1 | ||||||
| Employed | 1.02 | (0.96–1.08) | 1.02 | (0.96–1.08) | 0.81 | |
| Unemployed | 1.00 | (0.95–1.06) | 1.02 | (0.97–1.08) | ||
| Income at Exam1 | ||||||
| $50,000+ | 1.03 | (0.98–1.08) | 1.01 | (0.96–1.07) | 0.33 | |
| $20,000-$49,999 | 0.99 | (0.92–1.06) | 1.01 | (0.95–1.07) | ||
| $0-$19,999 | 0.98 | (0.88–1.09) | 1.07 | (0.99–1.15) | ||
| Anger at Exam1 | ||||||
| Low | 1.03 | (0.97–1.09) | 1.04 | (0.98–1.10) | 0.51 | |
| Medium | 1.01 | (0.96–1.07) | 0.99 | (0.94–1.05) | ||
| High | 0.98 | (0.90–1.06) | 1.03 | (0.96–1.11) | ||
| Depressive symptoms at Exam1 | ||||||
| No | 1.02 | (0.97–1.06) | 1.02 | (0.98–1.06) | 0.71 | |
| Yes | 0.96 | (0.84–1.10) | 1.03 | (0.93–1.14) | ||
| Chronic stress at Exam1 | ||||||
| Low | 1.02 | (0.96–1.07) | 1.04 | (0.99–1.08) | 0.88 | |
| Medium | 1.00 | (0.93–1.07) | 1.00 | (0.93–1.07) | ||
| High | 1.03 | (0.94–1.13) | 1.01 | (0.92–1.11) | ||
| Discrimination at Exam1 | ||||||
| Low | 0.96 | (0.91–1.02) | 0.99 | (0.94–1.04) | 0.12 | |
| Medium | 1.02 | (0.96–1.09) | 1.02 | (0.96–1.07) | ||
| High | 1.08 | (1.01–1.15) | 1.08 | (1.01–1.15) | ||
| Neighborhood deprivation at Exam1 | ||||||
| Low | 0.99 | (0.89–1.09) | 1.01 | (0.93–1.09) | 0.67 | |
| Medium | 1.00 | (0.93–1.08) | 1.04 | (0.97–1.11) | ||
| High | 1.03 | (0.98–1.08) | 1.02 | (0.97–1.06) | ||
| Neighborhood safety at Exam1 | ||||||
| Safe | 1.00 | (0.96–1.04) | 1.01 | (0.97–1.06) | 0.35 | |
| Not safe | 1.09 | (0.98–1.21) | 1.05 | (0.97–1.15) | ||
Note: Each modified Poisson regression model accounted for clustering within neighborhood (i.e., census tract at Exam 1) [47]
* Adjusted for visit, age, sex/gender, race, nativity, geographic region, marital status, self-rated health, insurance, family CVD history, social support, education, income, employment, anger, depressive symptoms, chronic stress, discrimination, neighborhood deprivation, and neighborhood safety
** CVH assessed during exams at or after neighborhood social cohesion assessment at Exam 1 among MASALA and MESA participants included in the primary analysis (n = 6,086)
† Global chi-squared test provided p-values to indicate whether at least one of the coefficients of the product terms between neighborhood social cohesion and psychosocial risk were different from zero