Next Article in Journal
Pharmacy Travel Health Services in Canada: Experience of Early Adopters
Next Article in Special Issue
Clinical Pharmacy Intervention for Persons Experiencing Homelessness: Evaluation of Patient Perspectives in Service Design and Development
Previous Article in Journal
Medicine Prices, Availability, and Affordability in Private Health Facilities in Low-Income Settlements in Nairobi County, Kenya
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pharmacy
Volume 7
Issue 2
10.3390/pharmacy7020041
pharmacy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Polypharmacy among Older Americans

by
Shervin Assari
1,* and
Mohsen Bazargan
1,2
1
Department of Family Medicine, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, CA 90059, USA
2
Department of Family Medicine, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pharmacy 2019, 7(2), 41; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy7020041
Submission received: 19 March 2019 / Revised: 9 April 2019 / Accepted: 21 April 2019 / Published: 25 April 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Health Inequality and Pharmacy)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Very few studies with nationally representative samples have investigated the combined effects of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic position (SEP) on polypharmacy (PP) among older Americans. For instance, we do not know if prevalence of PP differs between African Americans (AA) and white older adults, whether this difference is due to a racial gap in SEP, or whether racial and ethnic differences exist in the effects of SEP indicators on PP. Aims: We investigated joint effects of race/ethnicity and SEP on PP in a national household sample of American older adults. Methods: The first wave of the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging included a total of 906 older adults who were 65 years or older (80 AA and 826 white). Race/ethnicity, SEP (income, education attainment, marital status, and employment), age, gender, and PP (using 5+ medications) were measured. Logistic regression was applied for data analysis. Results: Race/ethnicity, age, marital status, and employment did not correlate with PP; however, female gender, low education attainment, and low income were associated with higher odds of PP among participants. Race/ethnicity interacted with low income on odds of PP, suggesting that low income might be more strongly associated with PP in AA than white older adults. Conclusions: While SEP indicators influence the risk of PP, such effects may not be identical across diverse racial and ethnic groups. That is, race/ethnicity and SEP have combined/interdependent rather than separate/independent effects on PP. Low-income AA older adults particularly need to be evaluated for PP. Given that race and SEP have intertwined effects on PP, racially and ethnically tailored interventions that address PP among low-income AA older adults may be superior to universal interventions and programs that ignore the specific needs of diverse populations. The results are preliminary and require replication in larger sample sizes, with PP measured directly without relying on individuals’ self-reports, and with joint data collected on chronic disease.

1. Introduction

Polypharmacy (PP), defined as the concomitant use of several prescribed medicines, increases the risk of inappropriate use of medications as well as undesired drug interactions [1,2,3]. Although it is differently defined across various studies [4], PP is commonly found to be correlated with a variety of health threats including drug-drug interactions and reduced adherence to necessary medications [5,6]. As PP is linked to cognitive decline [5,6], low quality of life [7], depression [8], function [9], psychological distress [10], and unintentional falls [5,6], prevention of PP may considerably reduce the costs to patients, families, the healthcare system, and society [11]. As PP increases the risk of morbidity and mortality of older adults [12], it is essential to conduct epidemiological studies, particularly on nationally representative samples, that have the potential to inform programs and interventions that can be used to reduce the burden of PP on society as a whole [13].
For several reasons, epidemiologists, economists, and clinicians are showing increasing interest in understanding the social patterning of PP in older adult populations. First, PP is a costly phenomenon [11]. In addition, PP is linked to undesired health outcomes such as hospitalization [14]. PP should be considered a serious health risk, particularly for older adults, as it increases adverse drug reactions by 75% in this age group [15,16]. Drug interactions that are a consequence of inappropriate PP are responsible for some of the hospitalizations among older adults [17]. Almost half of such hospitalizations can be avoided by the prevention of these inappropriate drug interactions [17]. In addition, PP is linked to mortality [14,18]. Finally, the problem of PP especially becomes a common problem as the population ages [19].
It has been shown that PP is particularly common in older adults [20,21,22,23] as they receive multiple prescribed medications [21] for their diagnosed chronic medical [1,24,25,26] and psychiatric [27] conditions. PP is particularly common in older adults who have multi-morbidities and comorbidities [22,23]. In addition to experiencing a higher prevalence of PP, older people are also more vulnerable to its adverse effects due to their frailty status, multimorbidity, and impaired cognitive capacity [28]. Moreover, age-related physiological changes make older adults more vulnerable to medical complications of PP compared to younger individuals [28]. In many countries, as the average age of populations increases, PP is becoming more common [29]. Thus, there is a need for more studies that help us understand the risk factors of PP.
The occurrence of PP in society, however, is not random but rather follows a social gradient [30]. PP is particularly common in racial and ethnic minority and low socioeconomic position (SEP) individuals who have multiple chronic conditions [31]. In addition to a high prevalence of PP [32], these populations are vulnerable to low health literacy and cognitive dysfunction [33,34]. These combined factors make individuals in these groups particularly prone to the adverse effects of PP [28].
Race and ethnicity may be among the key determinants of PP [35]. Across various race/ethnic groups, PP may be particularly common in African-American (AA) individuals [36] who have a disproportionately high risk of chronic disease [31]. AA patients are less likely to receive new, most effective, or simplified medication combinations [37,38,39,40,41]. As a result of poor access to such combined/simple medication regimens, AA patients are more likely to be prescribed with regimens composed of multiple, older, complex, and generic medications [4,36]. The result is an increased risk of PP, inappropriate medication use, and medication non-adherence in the AA community [42]. From the pool of epidemiological studies that have focused on PP [43,44,45], however, very few compare white and AA people [4,36]. We are not aware of any previous studies with a nationally representative sample investigating the combined effects of race/ethnicity and SEP on PP.
In addition to race/ethnicity, SEP indicators also seem to impact the risk of PP. Low education attainment and unemployment [46] are shown to impact the prevalence and burden of PP by directly reducing disease burden [29] or through other mechanisms [34]. Education and other SEP indicators seem to also alter population access to healthcare, which may increase the risk of PP [47].
Existing epidemiological information is very limited regarding the combined effects of race/ethnicity and SEP on PP [36,48,49]. From this limited number of existing studies, most studies have recruited local samples, leaving a knowledge gap regarding nationally representative estimates [36]. Bazargan et al. have shown that 75% of underserved older AA adults in South Los Angeles (n = 400) had PP (were taking 5+ medications per day) [36]. The same study went beyond studying polypharmacy and documented a 70% risk of inappropriate drug use. In that study, while gender, the number of providers, potentially inappropriate medication use, and multimorbidity were risk factors for PP, no SEP factors were found to affect PP in AA older adults [36]. There is an ongoing need to understand how race and SEP influence epidemiology of PP in American older adults.
Epidemiological studies that investigate the risk of PP by race/ethnicity and SEP may introduce new insights regarding individuals who are at an increased risk of potentially inappropriate medication use [50,51,52]. Such knowledge is essential for national strategies that aim to eliminate racial disparities in PP in the US. The findings derived from such epidemiological studies may be one step towards addressing the unmet health needs of AAs. Such information may be used to design, implement, and evaluate evidence-based programs that specifically target high-risk AA people who are at risk of potentially inappropriate medication use. Unfortunately, among various aspects of the health of AA people, PP is an understudied area [4,36,48,49].

Aims

This study recruited a nationally representative sample of older adults to investigate how race/ethnicity and SEP impact the risk of PP (taking five or more medications) among American older adults.

2. Methods

2.1. Design and Setting

This study used data from the first wave of the National Poll on Healthy Aging (NPHA, 2017). The NPHA is an online survey of older adults in the United States which uses a nationally representative sample. Conducted by the University of Michigan (UM) Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation (IHPI), the main aim of the UM-NPHA is to monitor changes in the health and well-being of older Americans.

2.2. National Poll on Healthy Aging 2017

The NPHA uses the Knowledge Networks (GFK KnowledgePanel) framework for sampling. This is an online internet panel which is nationally representative of US adults. The NPHA gathers data on the health and wellbeing of American adults who are at least 50 years old. Using random sampling, the NPHA provides an opportunity to study the combined effects of race/ethnicity, gender, and SEP on the daily life of older adults in the US. The study collects data on demographics, SEP indicators, social networks, and healthcare use. The study website is available here: https://www.healthyagingpoll.org/.

2.3. Analytical Sample

The current study included 906 older adults who were 65 years or older (comprising 80 AA and 826 non-Hispanic white individuals). Exclusion criteria for this study were (1) having an age lower than 65 years, (2) being of a racial and ethnic background other than AA/Black or white, and (3) being Hispanic [53].

2.4. Ethics

The University of Michigan Institutional Review Board (IRB) exempted the review of the NPHA study protocol. All NPHA participants signed informed consent.

2.5. Study Measures

Study variables included race/ethnicity, gender, age, marital status, employment, and physical SRH.

2.5.1. Independent Variables

Race/Ethnicity. Self-identified race/ethnicity was the moderator. Ethnicity was a dichotomous variable (non-Hispanic white 0 (the reference group), AA 1).
Educational Attainment. Education in this study was measured as an interval variable ranging from 1 to 12. A higher score was indicative of higher education attainment.
Employment Status. Employment status was operationalized as a dichotomous variable (unemployed 0 versus employed 1).
Marital Status. Marital status was a dichotomous variable (not married 0 versus married 1).
Poverty Status. Poverty status was calculated as a 21-level interval variable. These levels were based on household income which was calculated as an interval variable ranging from 1 to 21. Some examples of the income levels are 9 ($30,000 to $34,999), 12 ($50,000 to $59,999), 15 ($85,000 to $99,999), and 17 ($125,000 to $149,999). A higher poverty status score was indicative of lower SEP (less household income).

2.5.2. Dependent Variable

Polypharmacy was measured using self-reporting of the number of prescribed medicines. The exact question used was “How many different prescription medications are you currently taking?” Taking 5 or more medicines was considered as PP. This variable was treated as a dichotomous variable (no 0, yes 1) [1]. No additional instructions were given to the participants about prescription medications (please see our discussion of limitations).

2.5.3. Covariates

Demographic Variables. Gender and age were the study covariates. Age was treated as an interval variable, measured in years. Gender was treated as a dichotomous measure (male 0, female 1).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was performed using Stata 15.00 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). To describe the sample overall and by race/ethnicity, we reported the frequency (%) and mean (SD). We used chi-square as well as independent samples t-tests to compare AA and white older adults for the study variables. We used six logistic regression models. Model 1 only included the main effect of race/ethnicity. Model 2 included the main effects of the SEP indicators. Model 3 included race/ethnicity as well as the SEP indicators. Model 4 included two-by-two interaction terms between race/ethnicity and the SEP indicators. Model 5 and Model 6 tested the effects of SEP indicators for non-Hispanic white and AA older adults, respectively. Regression coefficients, standard errors (SE), 95% CI values, and p-values were reported.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 describes demographic factors, SEP indicators, and PP overall and by race/ethnicity. The sample included 906 older adults who were 65 years of age or older (80 AA and 826 white). About 19.5% and 19.0% of white and AA older adults reported PP, respectively. AA older adults were less likely to be married, reported lower income, and had lower educational attainment (p < 0.05). AA and white older adults did not differ in employment status (p < 0.05).

3.2. Separate and Combined Effects of Race/Ethnicity and SEP on PP in the Pooled Sample

Table 2 shows a summary of the results of four logistic regressions with PP as the outcome in the pooled sample. Based on Model 1, which only included race/ethnicity, gender, and age, race/ethnicity was not associated with PP (p = 0.967). Based on Model 2, which only included SEP indicators, education (p = 0.004), and employment (p = 0.002), but not poverty status (p = 0.980), were associated with PP. Based on Model 3, which included race/ethnicity and SEP indicators, education (p = 0.037) and employment (p = 0.006), but not race/ethnicity (p = 0.643) or poverty status (p = 0.714), were associated with PP. Based on Model 4, which also showed 2-by-2 interaction terms between SEP and race/ethnicity, poverty status showed an interaction with race/ethnicity (p = 0.041), with poverty status having a stronger effect on the prevalence of PP for AA than non-Hispanic white older adults (Table 2).

3.3. SEP Determinants of Polypharmacy in White and AA Older Adults

Table 3 shows the results of two logistic regressions with PP as the outcome in non-Hispanic white and AA older adults. In non-Hispanic whites, income was not correlated with PP (p = 0.863). In AA older adults, however, low income was associated with PP (p = 0.031) (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Using a national sample of American older adults, this study has investigated the joint effects of race/ethnicity and SEP on social patterning of PP in the US. We found that SEP but not race/ethnicity impacts PP and that the effects of SEP indicators depend on race/ethnicity. That is, low income has a stronger effect as a risk factor for PP for AA than white older adults in the US.
We found a lower risk of PP for females than males, which is different from what has been concluded in most of the previous literature [54,55]. Although not all [56], at least some [54,55,57] studies have documented a higher prevalence of PP for females than males. Beyond PP, inappropriate drug use is also more common in women [54,55,58], an association that seems to exist above and beyond age, SEP, and health [55]. This apparent contradiction may be due to better adherence of women to prescriptions [58]. The same gender differences are shown in low SEP older adults [59]. While men may be at a higher risk of cardiac PP, women are at an increased risk of non-cardiac PP [29]. Compared to men, women report more non-fatal chronic diseases [60,61] and are more likely to seek care and take medications for such conditions [62,63,64]. Women recognize [65] and communicate [66] their symptoms to their physicians and healthcare providers better than men. These gender differences are in part due to gender roles and gender socialization [67,68,69]. Women are more likely to adopt the sick role, which is socially learned [70,71]. Our finding, however, contradicts past research on higher PP in female as opposed to male older Americans.
Within older adults, we did not find any effect of age on PP. The effects of age on PP are well-established. At least some of the effects of age on PP are due to chronic diseases. In our study, however, we did not have information on chronic diseases. As individuals age, chronic diseases accumulate over time; such a growing catalogue of conditions means more pharmacological treatments prescribed for the individual [24]. As people reach their early sixties, the majority of individuals have at least two diagnosed chronic disorders that require treatment [25], and as individuals reach their late sixties, more than 25% of those older adults have three or more diagnosed chronic diseases that require treatment [26]. The effect of age on PP may also be different across racial groups, as chronic disease develops several years earlier in AA people than whites [72], suggesting that screening for PP should probably start earlier for low SEP AA people.
Several SEP indicators were found in this study that were correlated with PP. Low education attainment and unemployment were risk factors for PP. In the Swedish Panel Study of Living Conditions of the Oldest Old (SWEOLD 2002), which included a nationally representative sample of Swedish older adults (age ≥ 77 years), people with lower education were more likely to have PP. However, this association was fully explained by physical health [46]. In another study, high risks of PP in people with low education could not be explained by disease burdens [29]. In a recent study among AA people, however, education was positively linked to PP. The authors suggested that in the AA population, education may enable healthcare access, so AA people with higher education can get their conditions diagnosed and treated more frequently [47].
With PP becoming widespread due to the aging of the population [73], there is an increasing need to understand the social patterning of PP by conducting epidemiological studies and to conduct programs that can minimize the SEP and racial disparities in PP and inappropriate drug use. The results reported here may contribute to designing the interventions that may reduce PP in AA and low SEP people [36,74,75]. Current strategies are inefficient in reducing PP [76], emphasizing the necessity of conducting interventions that are most effective in reducing inappropriate PP for low SEP and minority people [36,76].
Although race/ethnicity and income were not shown to have major effects on PP, low income AA people were at an increased risk of PP. This is not the first study documenting an interaction between SEP and race/ethnicity on health outcomes [77,78]. However, this is probably the first study focusing on PP as the outcome. Differential health effects of education [79], income [80,81], employment [82], and marital status [83] are shown between whites and AA people. Such differential effects (SEP showing different effects by race) are very distinct from differential exposures (SEP is partially why racial minorities have worse health); however, the two mechanisms are complementary, as both contribute to existing health disparities [77]. These patterns emerge because populations with very equal SEP have unequal health needs, purchasing power, life conditions, environment, and healthcare access [77,78].

4.1. Implications

The findings reported here may be implemented by informing clinical practice as well as design and implement of public health programs and interventions that can ultimately eliminate or at least reduce racial and economic disparities in PP. Although the ultimate goal goes beyond reducing PP and should target inappropriate drug use, given the association between the two, knowledge of social epidemiology of PP is still relevant to reducing such disparities. We suggest that a comprehensive evaluation of PP and inappropriate drug use is needed, particularly in low SEP and AA older individuals.
Although in the discussion of this paper we spoke about the importance of preventing inappropriate PP, our outcome variable was simply PP. Some of our sample may be appropriate and some may be inappropriate PP. There is a need to conduct future research on inappropriate PP by race and SES. It should also be noted that in this study we only made conclusions based on PP rather than inappropriate PP. As mentioned above, we only know who is poly-medicated, regardless of knowing whether that is inappropriate PP.
Our results should be regarded as preliminary because we used a self-reported number of medicines given by the patient to measure polypharmacy. This is a major issue to consider, as the information that aging people can provide including that regarding medication may not always be reliable. Older adults may confuse medicines and doses and may even consider products such as vitamins and over the counter products as medications. Moreover, we were not able to gather information about possible cognitive problems in our patients. Unmeasured poor cognitive performance may have been a major source of bias in this study.

4.2. Limitations

The current study had several limitations. First, with a cross-sectional design, causal associations were not plausible. More research on the social determinants of PP is needed with a longitudinal design. Second, PP (our dependent variable) was defined based on a self-reported number of prescribed medications. This approach is prone to recall bias [84]. Future research should collect medication data from pharmacy charts or insurance claims, rather than simply relying on patients’ self-reports. Third, many relevant pieces of information such as health status and chronic disease were not included. Other than chronic disease [85], access to healthcare systems, health care coverage, regular places of care [86] and the number of healthcare providers [36] impacts PP. Unfortunately, this study did not include any data on chronic diseases which are influenced by SEP, race/ethnicity, and their intersections. Future research should include types of medical and psychiatric conditions as well as types of prescribed medications. Available data on chronic disease provides us the opportunity to define inappropriate use of medications using various algorithms including but not limited to STOPP/START criteria [87,88,89]. In the absence of data on chronic disease, we have only referred to our outcome as PP instead of inappropriate PP or inappropriate use of medications. Such data will help detect inappropriate medication use. All the variables in this study were limited to the individual level with no data collected from providers. Future research should investigate both patient and provider factors. Finally, this study had a very low sample of AA participants. Thus, there is a need for replication of this study in future, particularly with a larger number of AA subjects, longitudinal design, and a more comprehensive measure of PP and confounders. Despite these limitations, this study is among the first to report on the combined effects of race/ethnicity and SEP on PP, and how white and AA older adults differ in PP risk factors.

5. Conclusions

To conclude, race/ethnicity and SEP have joint (non-linear) effects on PP within the general population of older Americans. To be more specific, low income seems to have a stronger effect on PP for AA than white older Americans. There is a need to test culturally acceptable programs and interventions that consider specific needs due to intersections of race, ethnicity, and SEP. Such programs may be superior to universal programs that target PP.

Author Contributions

S.A. designed the conceptual model, conducted the statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript. M.B. contributed to the conceptualization of the paper and the interpretation of the findings and revised the paper. Both authors approved the final draft.

Funding

This study was supported by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) (grant 1H0CMS331621 to Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science (PI: M. Bazargan)). Additionally, Dr. Bazargan was supported by the NIH under the awards #4MD008149 and R25 MD007610 (PI: M. Bazargan), 2U54MD007598 (PI: J. Vadgama), and U54 TR001627 (PIs: S. Dubinett and R. Jenders).

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Hamid Helmi for his input in the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mortazavi, S.S.; Shati, M.; Keshtkar, A.; Malakouti, S.K.; Bazargan, M.; Assari, S. Defining polypharmacy in the elderly: A systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e010989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Taylor, L.K.; Kawasumi, Y.; Bartlett, G.; Tamblyn, R. Inappropriate prescribing practices: The challenge and opportunity for patient safety. Healthc. Q. 2005, 8, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sapkota, S.; Pudasaini, N.; Singh, C.; Sagar, G.C. Drug prescribing pattern and prescription error in elderly: A retrospective study of inpatient record. Asian J. Pharm. Clin. Res. 2011, 4, 129–132. [Google Scholar]
  4. Guthrie, B.; Makubate, B.; Hernandez-Santiago, V.; Dreischulte, T. The rising tide of polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions: Population database analysis 1995–2010. BMC Med. 2015, 13, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ziere, G.; Dieleman, J.P.; Hofman, A.; Pols, H.A.P.; van der Cammen, T.J.M.; Stricker, B.H.C. Polypharmacy and falls in the middle age and elderly population. Br. J. Clin. Pharm. 2006, 61, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Flaherty, J.H.; Perry, H.M.; Lynchard, G.S.; Morley, J.E. Polypharmacy and hospitalization among older home care patients. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2000, 55, M554–M559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Li, Q.; Xiang, Y.T.; Su, Y.A.; Shu, L.; Yu, X.; Chiu, H.F.; Correll, C.U.; Ungvari, G.S.; Lai, K.Y.; Ma, C.; et al. Antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia patients in China and its association with treatment satisfaction and quality of life: Findings of the third national survey on use of psychotropic medications in China. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 2015, 49, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Leszek, S.; Jadwiga, J.O.; Agnieszka, B.S. Polypharmacy as a risk factor for depressive symptoms in geriatric patients: An observational, cross-sectional study. Ars Pharm. 2016, 57, 127–135. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jyrkkä, J.; Enlund, H.; Lavikainen, P.; Sulkava, R.; Hartikainen, S. Association of polypharmacy with nutritional status, functional ability and cognitive capacity over a three-year period in an elderly population. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2011, 20, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Assari, S. Polypharmacy and Psychological Distress in African American Adults. Pharmacy 2019. under review. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Maher, R.L.; Hanlon, J.; Hajjar, E.R. Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014, 13, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Majdan, M.; Mauritz, W. Unintentional fall-related mortality in the elderly: Comparing patterns in two countries with different demographic structure. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e008672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hovstadius, B.; Petersson, G. Factors leading to excessive polypharmacy. Clin. Geriatr. Med. 2012, 28, 159–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wimmer, B.C.; Bell, J.S.; Fastbom, J.; Wiese, M.D.; Johnell, K. Medication regimen complexity and number of medications as factors associated with unplanned hospitalizations in older people: A population-based cohort study. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2016, 71, 831–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Parameswaran Nair, N.; Chalmers, L.; Peterson, G.M.; Bereznicki, B.J.; Castelino, R.L.; Bereznicki, L.R. Hospitalization in older patients due to adverse drug reactions –the need for a prediction tool. Clin. Interv. Aging 2016, 11, 497–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Byles, J.E.; Heinze, R.; Nair, B.K.; Parkinson, L. Medication use among older Australian veterans and war widows. Intern. Med. J. 2003, 33, 388–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Chan, M.; Nicklason, F.; Vial, J.H. Adverse drug events as a cause of hospital admission in the elderly. Intern. Med. J. 2001, 31, 199–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Wimmer, B.C.; Bell, J.S.; Fastbom, J.; Wiese, M.D.; Johnell, K. Medication regimen complexity and polypharmacy as factors associated with all-cause mortality in older people. Ann. Pharm. 2016, 50, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Dagli, R.J.; Sharma, A. Polypharmacy: A global risk factor for elderly people. J. Int. Oral Health 2014, 6, i–ii. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  20. Payne, R.A.; Avery, A.J.; Duerden, M.; Saunders, C.L.; Simpson, C.R.; Abel, G.A. Prevalence of polypharmacy in a Scottish primary care population. Eur. J. Clin. Pharm. 2014, 70, 575–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Statens Institut för Folkhälsan. Healthy Ageing: A Challenge for Europe; National Institute of Public Health: Stockholm, Sweden, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  22. Barnett, K.; Mercer, S.W.; Norbury, M.; Watt, G.; Wyke, S.; Guthrie, B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: A cross-sectional study. Lancet 2012, 380, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The Merck Institute of Aging & Health. The State of Aging and Health in America. 2004. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/aging/pdf/state_of_aging_and_health_in_america_2004.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2016).
  24. Veehof, L.J.G.; Stewart, R.E.; Haaijer-Ruskamp, F.M.; Meyboom-de Jong, B. The development of polyphamacy. A longitudinal study. Fam. Pract. 2000, 17, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Pierce, M.B.; Silverwood, R.J.; Nitsch, D.; Adams, J.E.; Stephen, A.M.; Nip, W.; Macfarlane, P.; Wong, A.; Richards, M.; Hardy, R.; et al. Clinical disorders in a post war British cohort reaching retirement: Evidence from the first National Birth Cohort study. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e44857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kuh, D.; Wong, A.; Shah, I.; Moore, A.; Popham, M.; Curran, P.; Davis, D.; Sharma, N.; Richards, M.; Stafford, M.; et al. The MRC National Survey of health and development reaches age 70: Maintaining participation at older ages in a birth cohort study. Eur J. Epidemiol. 2016, 31, 1135–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. McIntyre, R.S.; Jerrell, J.M. Polypharmacy in children and adolescents treated for major depressive disorder: A claims database study. J. Clin. Psychiatry 2009, 70, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Viktil, K.K.; Blix, H.S.; Moger, T.A.; Reikvam, A. Polypharmacy as commonly defined is an indicator of limited value in the assessment of drug-related problems. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2007, 63, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Craig, R.; Mindell, J. Health survey for England 2013; The Health and Social Care Information Centre: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  30. Morin, L.; Johnell, K.; Laroche, M.L.; Fastbom, J.; Wastesson, J.W. The epidemiology of polypharmacy in older adults: Register-based prospective cohort study. Clin. Epidemiol. 2018, 10, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Price, J.H.; Khubchandani, J.; McKinney, M.; Braun, R. Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Chronic Diseases of Youths and Access to Health Care in the United States. Biomed. Res. Int. 2013, 2013, 787616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Sarwar, M.R.; Iftikhar, S.; Sarfraz, M. Influence of Education Level of Older Patients on Polypharmacy, Potentially Inappropriate Medications Listed in Beer’s Criteria, and Unplanned Hospitalization: A Cross-Sectional Study in Lahore, Pakistan. Medicina 2018, 54, E57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Oyarzun-Gonzalez, X.A.; Taylor, K.C.; Myers, S.R.; Muldoon, S.B.; Baumgartner, R.N. Cognitive decline and polypharmacy in an elderly population. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2015, 63, 397–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Parekh, N.; Ali, K.; Davies, K.; Rajkumar, C. Can supporting health literacy reduce medication-related harm in older adults? Adv. Drug Saf. 2018, 9, 167–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Cashion, W.; McClellan, W.; Howard, G.; Goyal, A.; Kleinbaum, D.; Goodman, M.; Prince, V.; Muntner, P.; McClure, L.A.; McClellan, A.; et al. Geographic region and racial variations in polypharmacy in the United States. Ann. Epidemiol. 2015, 25, 433–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bazargan, M.; Smith, J.; Movassaghi, M.; Martins, D.; Yazdanshenas, H.; Salehe Mortazavi, S.; Orum, G. Polypharmacy among underserved older African American adults. J. Aging Res. 2017, 2017, 6026358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, J.; Zuckerman, I.H.; Miller, N.A.; Shaya, F.T.; Noel, J.M.; Mullins, C.D. Utilizing new prescription drugs: Disparities among non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Hispanic whites. Health Serv. Res. 2007, 42, 1499–1519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Schauer, D.P.; Johnston, J.A.; Moomaw, C.J.; Wess, M.; Eckman, M.H. Racial disparities in the filling of warfarin prescriptions for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Am. J. Med. Sci. 2007, 333, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mark, T.L.; Axelsen, K.J.; Mucha, L.; Sadkova, Y. Racial differences in switching, augmentation, and titration of lipid-lowering agents by Medicare/Medicaid dual-eligible patients. Am. J. Manag. Care 2007, 13, S72–S79. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. Wang, J.; Noel, J.M.; Zuckerman, I.H.; Miller, N.A.; Shaya, F.T.; Mullins, C.D. Disparities in access to essential new prescription drugs between non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic blacks, and Hispanic whites. Med. Care Res. Rev. 2006, 63, 742–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Farley, J.F.; Cline, R.R.; Gupta, K. Racial variations in antiresorptive medication use: Results from the 2000 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Osteoporos. Int. 2006, 17, 395–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Claxton, A.J.; Cramer, J.; Pierce, C. A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin. Ther. 2001, 23, 1296–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Aparasu, R.R.; Mort, J.R.; Brandt, H. Polypharmacy trends in office visits by the elderly in the United States, 1990 and 2000. Res. Soc. Admin. Pharm. 2005, 1, 446–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kim, H.-A.; Shin, J.-Y.; Kim, M.-H.; Park, B.-J. Prevalence and predictors of polypharmacy among Korean elderly. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e98043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. O’Dwyer, M.; Peklar, J.; McCallion, P.; McCarron, M.; Henman, M.C. Factors associated with polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy in older people with intellectual disability differ from the general population: A cross-sectional observational nationwide study. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e010505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Haider, S.I.; Johnell, K.; Thorslund, M.; Fastbom, J. Analysis of the association between polypharmacy and socioeconomic position among elderly aged > or =77 years in Sweden. Clin. Ther. 2008, 30, 419–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Assari, S.; Helmi, H. Polypharmacy in a Nationally Representative Sample of African American Adults. Pharmacy 2019. under review. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Bazargan, M.; Smith, J.L.; King, E.O. Potentially inappropriate medication use among hypertensive older African-American adults. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bazargan, M.; Smith, J.; Yazdanshenas, H.; Movassaghi, M.; Martins, D.; Orum, G. Non-adherence to medication regimens among older African-American adults. BMC Geriatr. 2017, 17, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Turner, J.P.; Jamsen, K.M.; Shakib, S.; Singhal, N.; Prowse, R.; Bell, J.S. Polypharmacy cut-points in older people with cancer: How many medications are too many? Support. Care Cancer 2016, 24, 1831–1840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Scottish Government Model of Care Polypharmacy Working Group. Polypharmacy Guidance, 2nd ed. 2015. Available online: http://www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk/publications/DC20150415polypharmacy.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2019).
  52. Scott, I.A.; Hilmer, S.N.; Reeve, E.; Potter, K.; Le Couteur, D.; Rigby, D.; Gnjidic, D.; Del Mar, C.B.; Roughead, E.E.; Page, A.; et al. Reducing inappropriate polypharmacy: The process of deprescribing. JAMA Intern. Med. 2015, 175, 827–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Maust, D.T.; Solway, E.; Clark, S.J.; Kirch, M.; Singer, D.C.; Malani, P. Prescription and Nonprescription Sleep Product Use Among Older Adults in the United States. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2019, 27, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Johnell, K.; Weitoft, G.R.; Fastbom, J. Sex differences in inappropriate drug use: A register-based study of over 600,000 older people. Ann. Pharm. 2009, 43, 1233–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Johnell, K.; Fastbom, J.; Rosén, M.; Leimanis, A. Inappropriate drug use in the elderly: A nationwide register-based study. Ann. Pharm. 2007, 41, 1243–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Al-Hashar, A.; Al Sinawi, H.; Al Mahrizi, A.; Al-Hatrushi, M. Prevalence and Covariates of Polypharmacy in Elderly Patients on Discharge from a Tertiary Care Hospital in Oman. Oman Med. J. 2016, 31, 421–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Venturini, C.D.; Engroff, P.; Ely, L.S.; Zago, L.F.; Schroeter, G.; Gomes, I.; De Carli, G.A.; Morrone, F.B. Gender differences, polypharmacy, and potential pharmacological interactions in the elderly. Clinics 2011, 66, 1867–1872. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  58. Boucquemont, J.; Pai, A.L.; Dharnidharka, V.R.; Hebert, D.; Furth, S.L.; Foster, B.J. Gender differences in medication adherence among adolescent and young adult kidney transplant recipients. Transplantation 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Haider, S.I.; Johnell, K.; Weitoft, G.R.; Thorslund, M.; Fastbom, J. The influence of educational level on polypharmacy and inappropriate drug use: A register-based study of more than 600,000 older people. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2009, 57, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Regitz-Zagrosek, V. Sex and gender differences in health. Science & Society Series on Sex and Science. EMBO Rep. 2012, 13, 596–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Murtagh, K.N.; Hubert, H.B. Gender differences in physical disability among an elderly cohort. Am. J. Public Health 2004, 94, 1406–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Bertakis, K.D.; Azari, R.; Helms, L.J.; Callahan, E.J.; Robbins, J.A. Gender differences in the utilization of health care services. J. Fam. Pract. 2000, 49, 147–152. [Google Scholar]
  63. Hawthorne, A.B.; Rubin, G.; Ghosh, S. Review article: Medication non-adherence in ulcerative colitis—Strategies to improve adherence with mesalazine and other maintenance therapies. Aliment. Pharm. 2008, 27, 1157–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Courtenay, W.H. Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 2000, 50, 1385–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vlahiotis, A.; Sedjo, R.; Cox, E.R.; Burroughs, T.E.; Rauchway, A.; Lich, R. Gender differences in self-reported symptom awareness and perceived ability to manage therapy with disease-modifying medication among commercially insured multiple sclerosis patients. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 2010, 16, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Braybrook, D.E.; Witty, K.R.; Robertson, S. Men and lung cancer: A review of the barriers and facilitators to male engagement in symptom reporting and screening. J. Men’s Health 2011, 8, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Galdas, P.M.; Cheater, F.; Marshall, P. Men and health help-seeking behaviour: Literature review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2005, 49, 616–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Hammond, W.P.; Matthews, D.; Mohottige, D.; Agyemang, A.; Corbie-Smith, G. Masculinity, medical mistrust, and preventive health services delays among community-dwelling African-American men. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2010, 25, 1300–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Addis, M.E.; Mahalik, J.R. Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. Am. Psychol. 2003, 58, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Gijsber van Wijk, C.M.T.; Kolk, A.M.; van den Bosch, W.J.H.M.; van den Hoogen, H.J. Male and female morbidity in general practice: The nature of sex differences. Soc. Sci. Med. 1992, 35, 665–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Suominen-Taipale, A.L.; Martelin, T.; Koskinen, S.; Holmen, J.; Johnsen, R. Gender differences in health care use among the elderly population in areas of Norway and Finland. A cross-sectional analysis based on the HUNT study and the FINRISK Senior Survey. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2006, 6, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Assari, S. Number of Chronic Medical Conditions Fully Mediates the Effects of Race on Mortality; 25-Year Follow-Up of a Nationally Representative Sample of Americans. J. Racial Ethn. Health Dispar. 2017, 4, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hajjar, E.R.; Cafiero, A.C.; Hanlon, J.T. Polypharmacy in elderly patients. Am. J. Geriatr Pharm. 2007, 5, 345–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Farrell, B.; Shamji, S.; Monahan, A.; French Merkley, V. Reducing polypharmacy in the elderly: Cases to help you “rock the boat”. Can. Pharm. J. 2013, 146, 243–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cooper, J.A.; Cadogan, C.A.; Patterson, S.M.; Kerse, N.; Bradley, M.C.; Ryan, C.; Hughes, C.M. Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people: A Cochrane systematic review. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e009235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Johansson, T.; Abuzahra, M.E.; Keller, S.; Mann, E.; Faller, B.; Sommerauer, C.; Höck, J.; Löffler, C.; Köchling, A.; Schuler, J.; et al. Impact of strategies to reduce polypharmacy on clinically relevant endpoints: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2016, 532–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Assari, S. Health disparities due to diminished return among black Americans: Public policy solutions. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 2018, 12, 112–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Assari, S. Unequal gain of equal resources across racial groups. Int. J. Health Policy Manag. 2018, 7, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Assari, S.; Lankarani, M.M. Race and urbanity alter the protective effect of education but not income on mortality. Front. Public Health 2016, 4, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Assari, S.; Moghani Lankarani, M. Poverty Status and Childhood Asthma in White and Black Families: National Survey of Children’s Health. Healthcare 2018, 6, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Assari, S. The benefits of higher income in protecting against chronic medical conditions are smaller for African Americans than whites. Healthcare 2018, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Assari, S. Life expectancy gain due to employment status depends on race, gender, education, and their intersections. J. Racial Ethn. Health Disparities. 2018, 5, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Assari, S.; Caldwell, C.; Zimmerman, M. Family structure and subsequent anxiety symptoms; Minorities’ Diminished Return. Brain Sci. 2018, 8, 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Johnell, K. The controversies surrounding polypharmacy in old age—Where are we? Expert Rev. Clin. Pharm. 2018, 11, 825–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rieckert, A.; Trampisch, U.S.; Klaaßen-Mielke, R.; Drewelow, E.; Esmail, A.; Johansson, T.; Keller, S.; Kunnamo, I.; Löffler, C.; Mäkinen, J.; et al. Polypharmacy in older patients with chronic diseases: A cross-sectional analysis of factors associated with excessive polypharmacy. BMC Fam. Pract. 2018, 19, 113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Okoro, C.A.; Strine, T.W.; Young, S.L.; Balluz, L.S.; Mokdad, A.H. Access to health care among older adults and receipt of preventive services. Results from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2002. Prev. Med. 2005, 40, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Hill-Taylor, B.; Sketris, I.; Hayden, J.; Byrne, S.; O’Sullivan, D.; Christie, R. Application of the STOPP/START criteria: A systematic review of the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults, and evidence of clinical, humanistic and economic impact. J. Clin. Pharm. 2013, 38, 360–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Gallagher, P.; Ryan, C.; Byrne, S.; Kennedy, J.; O’Mahony, D. STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment). Consensus validation. Int. J. Clin. Pharm. 2008, 46, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. O’Mahony, D.; O’Sullivan, D.; Byrne, S.; O’Connor, M.N.; Ryan, C.; Gallagher, P. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: Version 2. Age Ageing 2015, 44, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Descriptive results for the overall sample (n = 906).
Table 1. Descriptive results for the overall sample (n = 906).
All (n = 906)Whites (n = 826)AA (n = 80)
Mean (Standard Error (SE))Mean (SE) Mean (SE)
Age71.07 (0.14)71.15 (0.15)70.29 (0.46)
Poverty *9.35 (0.14)9.25 (0.15)10.43 (0.45)
Education (1)–(4) *2.92 (0.03)2.96 (0.03)2.54 (0.10)
n (%)n (%)n (%)
Gender
Male453 (48.92)414 (48.94)39 (48.75)
Female473 (51.08)432 (51.06)41 (51.25)
Employed
No778 (84.20)709 (83.91)69 (87.34)
Yes146 (15.80)136 (16.09)10 (12.66)
Married *
No295 (31.86)252 (29.79)43 (53.75)
Yes631 (68.14)594 (70.21)37 (46.25)
Polypharmacy *
No744 (80.52)680 (80.47)64 (81.01)
Yes180 (19.48)165 (19.53)15 (18.99)
Source: The National Poll on Healthy Aging 2017. AA, African Americans * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Four logistic regression models with polypharmacy as the outcome in the overall sample.
Table 2. Four logistic regression models with polypharmacy as the outcome in the overall sample.
OR(SE)95% ORZp
Model 1 (All; n = 906) Race Model
Race/ethnicity (AA)0.99 (0.30)0.55–1.78−0.040.967
Gender (female)0.75 (0.13)0.54–1.05−1.690.090
Age1.02 (0.02)0.98–1.061.100.269
Model 2 (All; n = 906) SEP Model
Gender (female)0.69 (0.11)0.50–0.96−2.240.025
Age1.01 (0.02)0.98–1.050.780.434
Marital status0.99 (0.18)0.69–1.42−0.050.959
Education0.76 (0.07)0.63–0.92−2.870.004
Employment0.42 (0.12)0.24–0.73−3.070.002
Poverty1.00 (0.02)0.96–1.04−0.020.980
Model 3 (All; n = 906) Race and SEP Model
Race (AA)0.87 (0.27)0.47–1.59−0.460.643
Gender (female)0.68 (0.12)0.49–0.96−2.170.030
Age1.01 (0.02)0.97–1.050.650.515
Marital status1.02 (0.20)0.69–1.510.110.913
Education0.80 (0.08)0.65–0.99−2.080.037
Employment0.45 (0.13)0.25–0.79−2.770.006
Poverty1.01 (0.02)0.96–1.060.370.714
Model 4 (All; n = 906) Race by SEP Model
Race (AA)0.06 (0.11)0.00–2.28−1.520.129
Gender (female)0.66 (0.12)0.47–0.94−2.340.019
Age1.02 (0.02)0.98–1.060.860.390
Marital status1.11 (0.24)0.74–1.690.510.609
Education0.78 (0.09)0.63–0.96−2.290.022
Employment0.44 (0.13)0.24–0.80−2.720.007
Poverty1.00 (0.02)0.95–1.04−0.180.858
Education × Race (AA)1.37 (0.51)0.66–2.860.840.401
Poverty × Race (AA)1.22 (0.12)1.01–1.482.040.041
Employed × Race (AA)1.77 (2.10)0.17–18.110.480.632
Married × Race (AA)0.38 (0.27)0.10–1.50−1.380.167
Source: The National Poll on Healthy Aging 2017. Legend: AA, African Americans; SEP, socioeconomic position; OR, odds ratio.
Table
Table 3. Results of two logistic regressions with polypharmacy as the outcome in race/ethnic groups.
Table 3. Results of two logistic regressions with polypharmacy as the outcome in race/ethnic groups.
OR(SE)95% ORZp
Model 3 (White; n = 826)
Gender (female)0.69 (0.13)0.48–0.99−2.040.042
Age1.02 (0.02)0.97–1.060.750.453
Marital status1.12 (0.24)0.74–1.700.540.587
Education0.78 (0.09)0.63–0.97−2.250.024
Employment0.44 (0.13)0.24–0.80−2.720.007
Poverty1.00 (0.02)0.95–1.05−0.170.863
Model 3 (AA; n = 80)
Gender (female)0.34 (0.25)0.08–1.42−1.480.139
Age1.06 (0.09)0.91–1.250.770.441
Marital status0.33 (0.24)0.08–1.39−1.510.131
Education1.08 (0.40)0.52–2.210.200.840
Employment1.00 (1.20)0.10–10.490.000.999
Poverty1.26 (0.13)1.02–1.542.160.031
Source: The National Poll on Healthy Aging 2017. AA, African Americans.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Assari, S.; Bazargan, M. Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Polypharmacy among Older Americans. Pharmacy 2019, 7, 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy7020041

AMA Style

Assari S, Bazargan M. Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Polypharmacy among Older Americans. Pharmacy. 2019; 7(2):41. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy7020041

Chicago/Turabian Style

Assari, Shervin, and Mohsen Bazargan. 2019. "Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Polypharmacy among Older Americans" Pharmacy 7, no. 2: 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy7020041

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop