Racial residential segregation, racial discrimination, and diabetes: The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study

Health & Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Health and Place journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthplace

Racial residential segregation, racial discrimination, and diabetes: The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study Stephanie L. Mayne a, b, *, Luigi Loizzo b, Michael P. Bancks b, c, Mercedes R. Carnethon b, Sharrelle Barber d, Penny Gordon-Larsen e, April P. Carson f, Pamela J. Schreiner g, Anne E. Bantle h, Kara M. Whitaker i, Kiarri N. Kershaw b a

Division of General Pediatrics, The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA Department of Epidemiology and Prevention, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA d Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA e Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA f Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, Birmingham, AL, USA g Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA h Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA i Department of Health and Human Physiology, University of Iowa College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Iowa City, IA, USA b c

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Diabetes Segregation Racial discrimination Epidemiology Neighborhood

Although racial residential segregation and interpersonal racial discrimination are associated with cardiovas­ cular disease, few studies have examined their link with diabetes risk or management. We used longitudinal data from 2,175 black participants in the Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study to examine associations of racial residential segregation (Gi* statistic) and experiences of racial discrimination with diabetes incidence and management. Multivariable Cox models estimated associations for incident diabetes and GEE logistic regression estimated associations with diabetes management (meeting targets for HbA1c, systolic blood pressure, and LDL cholesterol). Neither segregation nor discrimination were associated with diabetes incidence or management.

1. Introduction

these factors is racial residential segregation, the physical separation of blacks by residence from other racial/ethnic groups, which has been described as a fundamental cause of health disparities (Williams and Collins, 2001). Segregation is believed to influence chronic disease outcomes such as diabetes by limiting access to health-promoting re­ sources and through increasing exposure to health-harming and stressful environmental conditions such as economic disinvestment, crime, and unhealthy food outlets (Kramer and Hogue, 2009; Williams and Collins, 2001). While segregation is a structural factor influencing racial disp. arities in health, interpersonal racial discrimination is a psychosocial stressor believed to influence health outcomes through chronic stress (Williams and Mohammed, 2009) and/or through adoption of un­ healthy behaviors as a coping mechanism (Borrell et al., 2010) Exposure to racial residential segregation and interpersonal racial discrimination have been linked to adverse chronic conditions including obesity, hy­ pertension, and cardiovascular disease (Bower et al., 2015; Kershaw and

In the United States, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes is nearly twice as high among non-Hispanic black adults as among non-Hispanic whites, a disparity that has widened over the past 30 years (Menke et al., 2015). Black-white disparities have also been reported in diabetes incidence (Bancks et al., 2017; Geiss et al., 2014) and mortality (Rosenstock et al., 2014). In addition, black adults with diagnosed diabetes have been found to have lower rates of HbA1c testing compared white adults (Meng et al., 2016). Given these well-described disparities, identifica­ tion of the determinants of poor diabetes outcomes among non-Hispanic black individuals is of significant public health importance. Racial disparities in diabetes outcomes are likely due to a combina­ tion of biological, social, and environmental factors including socio­ economic status, chronic stress, and exposure to neighborhood-level risks and resources (Kershaw and Pender, 2016). Underlying many of

* Corresponding author. Roberts Center for Pediatric Research, 2716 South Street 10th floor, Philadelphia, 19146, PA, USA. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.L. Mayne). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102286 Received 29 August 2019; Received in revised form 21 December 2019; Accepted 13 January 2020 1353-8292/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Stephanie L. Mayne, Health & Place, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102286

S.L. Mayne et al.

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

lack of overlap in segregation scores between black and white partici­ pants and the unique historical context of segregation of black Ameri­ cans (Kramer and Hogue, 2009). Among 2,637 black participants at baseline, we excluded 21 with prevalent diabetes at baseline, and 441 who were missing follow-up information at later exams needed to classify diabetes, for a total sample size of 2,175. Excluded participants were on average slightly younger, more likely to be male, smoke, report heavy alcohol consumption, and to have a high school degree or less. Exposure to racial residential segregation and interpersonal racial discrimination did not differ between included and excluded partici­ pants. CARDIA was approved by each field center’s Institutional Review Board, and all participants provided written informed consent.

Albrecht, 2015; Sims et al., 2012; Stepanikova et al., 2017). However, few studies have examined the relationship of these factors with diabetes. Two prior studies examined associations between interpersonal racial discrimination and higher incident diabetes, both reporting a positive association (Bacon et al., 2017; Whitaker et al., 2017). To our knowledge, no studies to date have examined associations between racial residential segregation and incident diabetes among non-Hispanic blacks. Three cross-sectional studies have assessed associations with diabetes prevalence among black adults, with mixed findings. Two studies reported no association (Piccolo et al., 2015; Gaskin et al., 2014) whereas a recent study that linked electronic health records to a spatial index of racial isolation (the extent to which black residents are only exposed to members of their own racial group) found segregation to be associated with greater diabetes prevalence (Bravo et al., 2018). Further, two ecological studies found that age-adjusted diabetes mor­ tality was higher in more segregated neighborhoods (Hunt et al., 2014; Rosenstock et al., 2014). These prior studies suggest an association be­ tween residential segregation and diabetes is plausible, but prospective studies are needed (Kershaw and Pender, 2016). One potential explanation for the disparate findings regarding the association of segregation with diabetes prevalence versus mortality is that segregation may be more closely related to diabetes management and severity rather than development. Consistent with this idea, previ­ ous studies have shown interpersonal racial discrimination was associ­ ated with worse health behaviors and poorer glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (Assari et al., 2017; Dawson et al., 2015). It is unknown whether segregation, a structural form of racial discrimi­ nation, is associated with poorer diabetes management outcomes such as hemoglobin A1c, systolic blood pressure, or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. However, it is plausible that residents of more segregated neighborhoods may have worse diabetes management out­ comes through pathways including chronic stress, limited access to healthy food and physical activity resources (Goodman et al., 2018), or reduced access to healthcare (Gaskin et al., 2012). Alternatively, since the findings relating segregation to diabetes mortality were based on an ecological study design, these associations might be due to ecological fallacy (Hunt et al., 2014; Rosenstock et al., 2014). Further study is needed to understand whether structural and interpersonal racial discrimination (e.g. racial residential segregation and experiences of racial discrimination) influence diabetes incidence and management. Our objective was to estimate associations of racial residential segregation and interpersonal racial discrimination with incident dia­ betes and diabetes management among black participants of the Coro­ nary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study. We hypothesized that participants who 1) lived in more highly segregated neighborhoods or 2) reported a greater number of experiences of interpersonal racial discrimination would have increased diabetes inci­ dence and would be less likely to meet diabetes management targets.

2.2. Racial residential segregation Data on census tract-level racial composition was linked to CARDIA participants at exams 0, 7, 10, 15, 20, and 25 using the U.S. Census or American Community Survey data that aligned most closely temporally (Kershaw et al., 2017; Pool et al., 2018). Racial residential segregation was then measured using the Getis-Ord Local Statistic (Gi*) (Getis and Ord, 1992). The Gi* statistic is a spatial autocorrelation measure that estimates the extent to which the racial composition (i.e., percent non-Hispanic black race) of a given census tract, and that of its neigh­ boring tracts, is similar to that of the larger areal unit surrounding the tract. The Gi* statistic is a measure of clustering, one of the 5 dimensions of segregation defined by Massey and Denton, which quantifies the extent to which racially similar neighborhoods group together in space (Massey and Denton, 1988). We chose this approach over other potential measures of segregation (e.g. census tract racial/ethnic composition) because the Gi* statistic incorporates information on the racial compo­ sition of the larger metropolitan area, and thus better reflects the contextual and spatial elements of segregation. For example, a neigh­ borhood where 30% of residents are non-Hispanic black would indicate over-representation in a city that is 5% black, but would indicate under-representation in a city that is 50% black. In CARDIA, metro­ politan statistical areas were used as the larger areal unit for participants living in metropolitan areas and counties were used for participants not living in metropolitan areas. Neighboring tracts were defined as those that shared a border with the index tract. This approach was chosen over alternatives (e.g. tracts within a 1-mile radius around the index tract centroid) to be consistent across tracts of varying sizes, and has been used in prior examinations of segregation and health outcomes in CARDIA (Kershaw et al., 2017; Pool et al., 2018). The Gi* statistic returns a z-score with higher positive values indi­ cating the tract and its neighbors have a higher than expected percent­ age of black residents and higher negative values indicating the tract and its neighbors have a lower than expected percentage of black residents. As in prior studies (Kershaw et al., 2017; Mayne et al., 2019; Pool et al., 2018), segregation was categorized as high (Gi*>1.96), medium (Gi* 0 to 1.96), and low (Gi*<0) based on the critical z-score values for a 95% confidence interval (-1.96 to 1.96). As no participants lived in areas with Gi*<-1.96, the cutpoint for the low segregation category was set to 0, which indicates a z-score at the mean racial composition for the sur­ rounding metropolitan area or county. As participants moved during the follow-up period, we examined both baseline and time-varying segregation.

2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study population CARDIA is a prospective multi-center cohort study of the develop­ ment and determinants of cardiovascular disease and related risk factors (Friedman et al., 1988). CARDIA used population-based sampling to enroll 5,115 black and white adults aged 18–30 years in 1985–1986 from 4 locations: Birmingham, AL; Chicago, IL; Minneapolis, MN; and Oakland, CA. The cohort was recruited to be balanced across age, edu­ cation, race, and sex. Participants were re-examined after 2, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 years, with retention rates of 91%, 86%, 81%, 79%, 74%, 72%, 72%, and 71%, respectively. Participants’ home addresses were geocoded at baseline and in years 7–25 in order to link census tract-level exposures (e.g. segregation). In this analysis, we included data from the baseline exam and years 7–30. We focused on black participants due to a

2.3. Experiences of racial discrimination As described previously (Cunningham et al., 2013; Krieger and Sid­ ney, 1996; Krieger et al., 1998), in exam years 7, 15, 25, and 30, self-reported experiences of racial/ethnic discrimination were assessed using the validated Experiences of Discrimination Index (Krieger et al., 2005). Participants were asked whether they had “ever experienced discrimination, been prevented from doing something, or been hassled or made to feel inferior … because of your race or color” in seven 2

S.L. Mayne et al.

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

To estimate associations of segregation and racial discrimination with incident diabetes, we used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Time at risk was defined as time from the baseline exam until the examination at which the participant first met the definition for diabetes or the last attended exam (administrative censoring). We ran two sets of models: one estimating associations of baseline segregation/ discrimination and adjusting for baseline values of the covariates listed above, and a second estimating associations of time-dependent segre­ gation/discrimination and adjusting for time-dependent covariate values updated at each exam. For baseline models, we tested the pro­ portional hazards assumption by adding interaction terms reflecting the product of segregation and discrimination, respectively, and the natural log of time at risk. We detected no violations of the proportional hazards assumption. In a sensitivity analysis, we calculated time at risk starting at the year 7 exam for the racial discrimination models, as discrimina­ tion was first assessed in year 7. Models were adjusted progressively as follows: Model 1: unadjusted; Model 2: adjusted for individual sociodemographics (baseline age, sex, study center, parental history of diabetes, education, and marital status); Model 3: additionally adjusted for individual health factors (smoking status, alcohol use, physical activity, diet score waist circumference, and depressive symptoms); Model 4 additionally adjusted for neighborhoodlevel covariates (census tract poverty and population density). Among the subset of participants who developed diabetes over follow-up, attended the year 20 or 25 exam and reported they had been diagnosed with diabetes, we assessed associations of time-varying segregation and discrimination with diabetes management, defined as meeting pre-specified targets for management of HbA1c, SBP, LDL cholesterol, or all 3 in exam years 20 and 25. We used multivariable generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression with an exchangeable correlation structure and clustering by participant to compare the odds of meeting diabetes management targets (versus not meeting targets) by time-varying segregation and discrimination cate­ gories. Models were adjusted for exam year and progressively adjusted for covariates as described above. Diabetes management models also adjusted for diabetes duration (time in years since diabetes was first identified) and indicators for whether participants were on diabetes medications, antihypertensive medications, and cholesterol-lowering medications at each exam. We then used multivariable GEE linear regression models to estimate associations with continuous values of HbA1c, SBP, and LDL cholesterol.

situations. Six situations were consistent across exams: at school, getting a job, at work, getting housing, getting medical care, and on the street/in a public setting. The last situation was assessed as “from police or in the courts” in year 7 and “at home” in years 15, 25, and 30. At each exam, the 7 items were combined into an index score and categorized as no experiences, 1–2 experiences, or �3 experiences, as in prior studies (Cunningham et al., 2012; Krieger and Sidney, 1996). The year 7 racial discrimination category was treated as the baseline value in our analyses. 2.4. Diabetes incidence and management Serum glucose was measured at each exam using the hexokinase ultraviolet method (baseline) and using hexokinase coupled to glucose6-phosphate dehydrogenase (subsequent exams). Values were stan­ dardized across exams. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was assessed at exam years 20 and 25 using Tosoh G7 (variant mode) high-performance liquid chromatography (national Glycohemoglobin Standardization Programcertified assays). Incident diabetes was determined at each exam if any of the following criteria were met: fasting glucose �126 mg/dL, 2-h glucose during the oral glucose tolerance test of �200 mg/dL, hemo­ globin A1c � 6.5%, or current use of medication for the treatment of diabetes mellitus (see Supplemental Methods). Among participants who 1) developed diabetes during the study period according to the clinical definition above and 2) responded “yes” to the question: “Has a doctor or nurse ever said that you have dia­ betes?“, optimal diabetes management was assessed using three targets: hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7.0%, systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 130 mmHg, and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol <100 mg/dL (based on diabetes treatment guidelines and prior studies) (American Diabetes Association, 2018; Ikramuddin et al., 2013; Jellinger et al., 2017; McFarlane et al., 2002). We restricted to participants who self-reported a diabetes diagnosis in order to examine diabetes man­ agement among participants who knew their diabetes status. This analysis included exam years 20 and 25 only, as those are the only years in which HbA1c was measured in the entire population. Resting SBP was measured at each exam by trained technicians 3 times at 1-min intervals using a random-zero sphygmomanometer (years 0–15) or an oscill­ ometer (years 20–25), and the second and third measurements were averaged. Values from years 20–25 were calibrated to the random-zero readings. LDL cholesterol concentration was estimated from plasma blood samples using the Friedewald equation for individuals with fast­ ing triglyceride values < 400 mg/dL (Friedewald et al., 1972).

3. Results

2.5. Covariates

3.1. Description of study population

Covariates included individual-level sociodemographics (age, sex, study center, education, marital status), self-reported health behaviors (alcohol use, smoking, physical activity, diet), other diabetes risk factors (parental history of diabetes, waist circumference, depressive symp­ toms), and census tract characteristics (poverty, population density). Details of how these covariates were measured are provided in Sup­ plemental Table 1.

Among 2175 black participants, 1774 (82%) lived in highly segre­ gated census tracts, 262 (12%) lived in medium segregation tracts, and 139 (6%) lived in low segregation tracts at baseline (Table 1). Over 40% of participants (n ¼ 934) reported experiencing racial discrimination in �3 areas at baseline. The percent of participants living in highly segregated tracts declined over time to 55%, and the percent reporting racial discrimination in �3 areas declined to 37% (Supplemental Table 3). Table 1 presents the distribution of diabetes events and baseline covariates by categories of baseline racial residential segregation and baseline racial discrimination experiences. Over a mean follow-up of 21.5 years, 442 cases of incident diabetes were identified in the overall study population. Participants living in low segregation neighborhoods and those who reported perceived racial discrimination in 1–2 areas were least likely to develop diabetes (Table 1).

2.6. Statistical analysis Missing data based on exam non-attendance and item non-response are shown in Supplemental Table 2. Participants who did not attend later exams (15–30) were slightly younger on average, more likely to be male, smoke, have higher baseline physical activity, and to have a high school degree or less compared to participants who did attend. They did not differ based on segregation or discrimination exposures, or based on other baseline covariates. We imputed missing covariate values by using Markov chain Monte Carlo multiple imputation to create 10 imputed datasets. Subsequent regression coefficients were pooled across imputed datasets using SAS MI Analyze (SAS version 9.4).

3.2. Diabetes incidence models: baseline segregation and discrimination as exposures In unadjusted models, hazard ratios (HRs) for incident diabetes 3

S.L. Mayne et al.

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1 Distribution of baseline characteristics by baseline racial residential segregation and racial discrimination categories. Baseline Characteristics

Baseline Segregation Categorya

Experiences of Racial Discriminationb

High

Medium

Low

None

1–2

3þ

N Mean follow-up time (years) N incident diabetes events Percent developing incident diabetes

1774 21.5 364 20.5%

262 21.7 55 21.0%

139 21.1 23 16.6%

345 21.2 74 21.5%

409 21.4 93 18.7%

934 21.4 200 21.4%

Age- Mean (SD) Female gender Field center: Birmingham, AL Chicago, IL Minneapolis, MN Oakland, CA Parental history of diabetes Married/married-like relationship Educational attainment:
24.3 (3.9) 57.7%

24.9 (3.6) 55.7%

24.8 (3.3) 54.0%

24.2 (3.8) 66.4%

24.2 (3.8) 58.4%

24.6 (3.8) 53.0%

26.1% 20.3% 22.9% 30.7% 17.4% 28.1%

26.7% 14.5% 20.6% 38.2% 13.0% 29.4%

10.1% 40.3% 15.1% 34.5% 18.0% 33.8%

30.5% 24.9% 15.4% 29.2% 16.0% 26.9%

28.5% 20.8% 18.7% 32.0% 18.0% 25.8%

21.0% 19.4% 26.9% 32.7% 16.5% 31.1%

14.2% 38.2% 47.6% 34.3%

8.0% 33.2% 58.8% 24.0%

8.6% 29.5% 61.9% 27.9%

17.6% 41.6% 40.8% 33.2%

11.6% 40.6% 47.8% 30.2%

12.3% 33.1% 54.6% 34.0%

47.6% 22.5% 29.9% 377.0 (305.5) 30.2 (11.0)

50.6% 20.7% 28.7% 421.6 (292.2) 31.7 (11.7)

38.9% 30.9% 30.2% 441.3 (312.3) 30.7 (11.1)

51.3% 22.3% 26.4% 339.9 (286.8) 29.0 (11.1)

49.1% 23.8% 28.1% 352.0 (270.5) 29.8 (11.0)

44.9% 22.3% 32.8% 425.9 (326.6) 31.4 (11.1)

78.4 (12.1) 25.8 (12.6) 13410.1 (10707.0)

77.9 (11.7) 17.1 (10.0) 11747.3 (8546.8)

77.4 (11.0) 11.7 (10.0) 15635.3 (16731.6)

78.0 (12.7) 25.5 (13.2) 13469.4 (10753.8)

78.4 (12.4) 24.2 (12.9) 13144.9 (10518.4)

78.3 (11.4) 23.0 (12.6) 13439.9 (11368.4)

a Racial residential segregation categorized into high, medium, and low using the value of the local Gi* statistic, which measures the deviation of the census tract’s racial composition from that of the larger metropolitan area. A Gi* statistic z-score <0 was categorized as low, 0 to 1.96 as medium, and >1.96 as high segregation. b Racial discrimination was assessed via survey. Participants reported whether they had experienced discrimination in any of 7 domains (e.g. school, getting a job, work, getting housing, getting medical care, on the street or in a public setting, from the police or in the courts). Discrimination was categorized as no experiences, 1–2 experiences, or 3þ experiences. Racial discrimination was first assessed in year 7, so this value is used for baseline discrimination. As such, baseline discrimination was missing for 398 participants. c Alcohol use was categorized as usually consuming: 0 drinks per week (none), 1–7 drinks per week for women or 1–14 drinks per week for men (moderate), or >7 drinks per week for women or >14 drinks per week for men (heavy). d Total physical activity was measured using the CARDIA physical activity questionnaire, which assessed the frequency of participation in the past 12 months in 13 moderate and vigorous intensity activities. A total physical activity score was calculated by multiplying the frequency of participation by intensity of the activity and summing across activities to create a continuous exercise unit score. e Dietary quality was assessed in years 0, 7 and 20 using a diet history questionnaire on dietary intake for the previous 28 days. Diet quality was quantified using the Alternative Healthy Eating Index, which includes vegetables, fruits, whole grains, nuts/legumes, red/processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages/fruit juice, trans fat, long-chain fats, polyunsaturated fatty acids, sodium, and alcohol consumption. f Census tract poverty was the percent of the participant’s residential census tract population living below the federal poverty threshold (range 0–100), using U.S. Census data.

comparing participants in medium and low segregation neighborhoods to those in high segregation neighborhoods were 0.94 (95% CI: 0.71, 1.25) and 0.79 (0.52, 1.21), respectively. Point estimates moved toward the null with progressive covariate adjustment (Table 2). For baseline racial discrimination, HRs for incident diabetes among participants who reported 1–2 and 3þ experiences of racial discrimination versus no ex­ periences were 0.95 (0.70, 1.30) and 1.03 (0.79, 1.35), respectively. Progressive covariate adjustment minimally changed results (Table 2).

incident diabetes among participants who reported 1–2 and 3þ expe­ riences of racial discrimination versus no experiences were 0.97 (0.74, 1.27) and 0.92 (0.72, 1.19), respectively. Results changed little upon adjustment for covariates. Results were similar in a sensitivity analysis where we calculated time at risk starting in year 7 instead of year 0 for the discrimination models (Supplemental Table 4).

3.3. Diabetes incidence models: time-varying segregation and discrimination as exposures

Among the 442 participants who developed diabetes based on our clinical definition during the study period, 321 developed diabetes by year 25 and attended either the year 20 or year 25 exam. Of these participants, 208 self-reported that a doctor or nurse had diagnosed them with diabetes, and were included in the diabetes management analysis (305 exam-years included in total). Table 3 presents the dis­ tribution of diabetes management measures (HbA1c, SBP, and LDL) and the percent of participants meeting targets for each measure, overall and by segregation and discrimination categories. Patterns varied by outcome and exposure and were not consistent between the two exams. For example, in year 25, participants living in low segregation

3.4. Diabetes management models

In unadjusted models with time-varying exposures, HRs for incident diabetes comparing participants in medium and low segregation neighborhoods to those in high segregation neighborhoods were 0.75 (0.59, 0.97) and 0.97 (0.76 1.22), respectively. Adjustment for socio­ demographic covariates slightly attenuated the estimate for medium segregation (HR: 0.79, CI: 0.61, 1.02), and adjustment for individuallevel health factors and neighborhood-level covariates further attenu­ ated the association (Table 2). For time-varying discrimination, HRs for 4

S.L. Mayne et al.

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 2 Associations of racial residential segregationa and racial discriminationb with incident diabetesc,d. HR for Incident Diabetes (95% CI) Segregation Category (Baseline) High Medium Low

Model 1 Reference 0.94 (0.71, 1.25) 0.79 (0.52, 1.21)

Model 2 Reference 0.97 (0.72, 1.30) 0.75 (0.49, 1.15)

Model 3 Reference 0.96 (0.71, 1.29) 0.85 (0.55, 1.31)

Model 4 Reference 1.01 (0.75, 1.37) 0.93 (0.59, 1.46)

Segregation Category (Time-Varying) High Medium Low

Model 1 Reference 0.75 (0.59, 0.97) 0.97 (0.76, 1.22)

Model 2 Reference 0.79 (0.61, 1.02) 0.98 (0.77, 1.24)

Model 3 Reference 1.04 (0.80, 1.35) 1.20 (0.94, 1.53)

Model 4 Reference 0.97 (0.74, 1.28) 1.09 (0.82, 1.43)

Discrimination Category (Baseline)

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 3

No Experiences 1-2 Experiences 3þ Experiences

Reference 0.95 (0.70, 1.30) 1.03 (0.79, 1.35)

Reference 0.94 (0.69, 1.29) 1.00 (0.77, 1.31)

Reference 0.96 (0.69, 1.33) 1.06 (0.81, 1.39)

Reference 0.96 (0.69, 1.34) 1.07 (0.82, 1.41)

Discrimination Category (Time-Varying) No Experiences 1-2 Experiences 3þ Experiences

Model 1 Reference 0.97 (0.74, 1.27) 0.92 (0.72, 1.19)

Model 2 Reference 0.97 (0.74, 1.28) 0.94 (0.73, 1.21)

Model 3 Reference 0.89 (0.68, 1.17) 0.87 (0.66, 1.14)

Model 4 Reference 0.91 (0.69, 1.19) 0.87 (0.67, 1.14)

HR: hazard ratio. a Racial residential segregation categorized into high, medium, and low using the value of the local Gi* statistic, which measures the deviation of the census tract’s racial composition from that of the larger metropolitan area. A Gi* statistic z-score <0 was categorized as low, 0 to 1.96 as medium, and >1.96 as high segregation. b Racial discrimination was assessed via survey. Participants reported whether they had experienced discrimination in any of 7 domains (e.g. school, getting a job, work, getting housing, getting medical care, on the street or in a public setting, from the police or in the courts). Discrimination was categorized as no experiences, 1–2 experiences, or 3þ experiences. c Diabetes defined as fasting glucose �126 mg/dL, self-reported use of medications for the treatment of diabetes mellitus, 2-h glucose during the oral glucose tolerance test of �200 mg/dL, or HbA1c � 6.5%. d Results are from Cox proportional hazards regression models and include the entire study population (n ¼ 2175). Baseline value models estimated associations for baseline segregation category (or baseline racial discrimination category) and adjusted for baseline covariates only. Time-varying value models estimated associations for time-varying segregation category (or time-varying racial discrimination) and adjusted for time-varying covariates. Model 1 was unadjusted. Model 2 adjusted for baseline age, sex, study center, parental history of diabetes, education, and marital status; Model 3 additionally adjusted for smoking status, alcohol use, physical activity, diet score, waist circumference, and depressive symptoms. Model 4 additionally adjusted for census tract poverty and population density.

neighborhoods were more likely to meet the SBP target of <130 mmHg (80.7% compared to 70.6% among participants in medium segregation neighborhoods and 70.7% among participants in high segregation neighborhoods). However, this pattern was not observed in exam year 20 (Table 3). In contrast to our hypothesis, participants living in low segregation neighborhoods in year 20 were the least likely to meet targets for all three measures (5.2% compared to 23.2% in medium and 20.6% in high segregation neighborhoods), although the percent meeting targets was similar between groups in year 25. Participants experience 1–2 forms of racial discrimination were least likely to meet all three targets in year 20, but most likely to meet all three targets in year 25 (Table 3). In multivariable GEE regression models (Tables 4–5), patterns were similarly inconsistent, and confidence intervals were generally wide. In contrast to our study hypothesis, participants living in low segregation neighborhoods had lower odds of meeting the HBA1c management target compared to participants in high segregation neighborhoods (odds ratio (OR): 0.49, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.97 after adjustment for individual-level sociodemographics), although subsequent adjustment for neighborhood-level covariates attenuated the association (Table 4). Participants living in medium segregation neighborhoods had lower levels of LDL cholesterol compared to participants in high segregation neighborhoods, with a mean difference of -9.41 mg/dL (-18.40, -0.41) after adjustment for individual-level covariates. This difference was reduced to -8.15 mg/dL (-18.28, 1.99) after subsequent adjustment for neighborhood-level covariates. Patterns were similar for participants in low segregation neighborhoods, although confidence intervals were wide and crossed the null (Table 5). Point estimates were in the hy­ pothesized direction for racial discrimination and SBP and LDL, with higher mean values among participants reporting experiences of racial discrimination, but confidence intervals were wide- for example, a relative difference in SBP of 5.52 mmHg (-1.93, 12.97) between

participants reporting 1–2 versus 0 experience of discrimination in fully adjusted models). Results were largely similar in a sensitivity analysis in which we did not restrict to participants who self-reported a diabetes diagnosis (n ¼ 321 participants, Supplemental Tables 5–6). We found no evidence of interaction by sex for either diabetes incidence or management (pinteraction >0.1 for all models). 4. Discussion Given persistent racial disparities in diabetes outcomes (Menke et al., 2015), identification of the environmental determinants of diabetes among non-Hispanic black adults is needed. In this longitudinal cohort of young to middle-aged black U.S. adults, racial residential segregation and experiences of interpersonal racial discrimination were not associ­ ated with diabetes incidence after adjustment for individual- and neighborhood-level covariates. Consistent with our findings, a recent review of 6 prior studies on segregation and diabetes found limited evidence supporting a relationship between residential segregation and diabetes prevalence (Kershaw and Pender, 2016). However, two prior studies found higher diabetes mortality rates in areas with a higher percentage of black residents (Hunt et al., 2014; Rosenstock et al., 2014). These contrasting results in the literature led us to examine whether segregation was associated with diabetes management after diagnosis. We hypothesized that segregation would negatively influence participants’ ability to achieve target levels of HbA2c, SBP, and LDL cholesterol after diabetes diagnosis as a result of the adverse environ­ mental consequences of segregation (e.g. limiting access to health pro­ moting resources and increasing exposure to stressors like crime). However, we found limited evidence of an association between either segregation or racial discrimination and diabetes management. The inconsistent results previously reported for segregation and 5

S.L. Mayne et al.

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3 Diabetes management among participants after diagnosis by racial residential segregation and racial discrimination categorya,b,c,d. e

N participants who developed diabetes by exam N (%) participants with diabetes attending exam N (%) participants with diabetes attending exam who self-reported a diabetes diagnosisf

Year 20

Year 25

226 202 124

338 291 181

Mean (SD) Denominator for % Controlled

% Controlled

Mean (SD)

124

HbA1c (<7.0% defined as controlled) Overall By Segregation Category: Low Medium High By Racial Discrimination Category: No experiences 1–2 experiences 3þ experiences SBP (<130 mmHg defined as controlled) Overall By Segregation Category: Low Medium High By Racial Discrimination Category: No experiences 1–2 experiences 3þ experiences LDL cholesterol (<100 mg/dL defined as controlled) Overall By Segregation Category: Low Medium High By Racial Discrimination Category: No experiences 1–2 experiences 3þ experiences All 3 controlled Overall By Segregation Category: Low Medium High By Racial Discrimination Category: No experiences 1–2 experiences 3þ experiences

% Controlled 181

7.7 (1.7)

38.4%

7.7 (1.8)

45.6%

8.2 (1.6) 7.2 (1.5) 7.7 (1.8)

23.7% 48.0% 40.6%

7.6 (1.5) 8.1 (1.9) 7.6 (1.8)

41.3% 38.5% 48.8%

7.8 (1.6) 7.6 (1.6) 7.7 (1.9)

33.1% 40.5% 39.9%

7.6 (1.7) 7.6 (1.8) 7.8 (1.8)

48.2% 44.5% 43.5%

120.1 (15.7)

78.2%

123.6 (16.9)

72.4%

120.2 (14.5) 116.7 (14.9) 121.2 (16.3)

77.8% 76.0% 79.2%

120.1 (12.3) 125.0 (21.1) 124.2 (16.6)

80.7% 70.6% 70.7%

120.1 (13.4) 123.4 (18.1) 117.4 (14.3)

83.0% 66.2% 85.3%

124.4 (18.0) 122.4 (15.8) 123.6 (16.6)

71.6% 73.3% 72.6%

102.9 (33.6)

52.8%

97.3 (32.8)

55.9%

97.7 (25.1) 100.0 (37.4) 105.9 (34.8)

52.6% 47.2% 54.9%

95.0 (33.0) 91.3 (32.4) 99.7 (32.6)

60.0% 60.9% 53.4%

98.5 (28.7) 111.5 (38.2) 98.6 (31.0)

54.0% 42.6% 60.5%

100.1 (33.1) 95.7 (29.6) 95.5 (34.3)

50.6% 59.2% 59.3%

–

17.7%

–

21.2%

– – –

5.2% 23.2% 20.6%

– – –

22.6% 23.8% 20.0%

– – –

21.9% 10.7% 21.0%

– – –

17.9% 27.6% 20.2%

SD: standard deviation; SBP: systolic blood pressure; LDL: low density lipoprotein. a Control defined as follows: HbA1c <7.0%, SBP <130 mm Hg, LDL <100 mg/dL. b Missing control values were imputed, so percentages reflect the total percent across all 10 imputed datasets. Mean values reflect averages across all 10 imputed datasets. c Racial residential segregation categorized into high, medium, and low using the value of the local Gi* statistic, which measures the deviation of the census tract’s racial composition from that of the larger metropolitan area. A Gi* statistic z-score <0 was categorized as low, 0 to 1.96 as medium, and >1.96 as high segregation. d Racial discrimination was assessed via survey. Participants reported whether they had experienced discrimination in any of 7 domains (e.g. school, getting a job, work, getting housing, getting medical care, on the street or in a public setting, from the police or in the courts). Discrimination was categorized as no experiences, 1–2 experiences, or 3þ experiences. e 00 Developing diabetes” was based on our definition of meeting any of the following criteria: fasting glucose �126 mg/dL, 2-h glucose during the oral glucose tolerance test of �200 mg/dL, hemoglobin A1c � 6.5%, or current use of medication for the treatment of diabetes mellitus. 442 participants developed diabetes during the follow-up period, and 321 of them developed diabetes by the year 25 exam and attended either the year 20 or year 25 exam. f Based on whether or not participants self-reported that a doctor or nurse ever said that they had diabetes. We conducted this analysis only among the subset who self-reported a diabetes diagnosis at the time of the exam in order to focus on participants who were aware they had diabetes prior to the exam. In total, 208 participants who developed diabetes over follow-up self-reported a diabetes diagnosis at the year 20 or year 25 exam.

diabetes may be a result of the use of varied measures of segregation in past studies. For example, of the three prior cross-sectional examinations of segregation and diabetes prevalence, two defined segregation based on census tract racial composition (percent black) (Piccolo et al., 2015; Gaskin et al., 2014), a crude measures that does not account for how

individuals are distributed in space (Kramer and Hogue, 2009). A third study, the only one reporting higher diabetes prevalence among blacks in more segregated areas, used a spatial racial isolation index that accounted for racial composition within an index block as well as neighboring blocks (Bravo et al., 2018). The two ecological studies 6

S.L. Mayne et al.

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 4 Associations of racial residential segregation and racial discrimination with dichotomous measures of diabetes management after diagnosisa,b,c. OR for Meeting Management Target (95% CI) Outcome HbA1c controlled (<7.0%)

Segregation Category High Medium Low

Model 1 Reference 0.82 (0.44, 1.53) 0.59 (0.31, 1.14)

Model 2 Reference 0.84 (0.41, 1.74) 0.49 (0.25, 0.97)

Model 3 Reference 0.85 (0.40, 1.81) 0.50 (0.25, 1.00)

Model 4 Reference 1.29 (0.59, 2.81) 0.87 (0.37, 2.08)

SBP controlled (<130 mm Hg)

High Medium Low

Reference 0.99 (0.50, 1.96) 1.20 (0.58, 2.50)

Reference 1.03 (0.50, 2.13) 1.07 (0.50, 2.31)

Reference 1.10 (0.55, 2.21) 1.01 (0.44, 2.34)

Reference 1.16 (0.54, 2.47) 1.15 (0.42, 3.14)

LDL controlled (<100 mg/dL)

High Medium Low

Reference 1.10 (0.63, 1.91) 1.15 (0.65, 2.04)

Reference 0.96 (0.54, 1.71) 1.14 (0.63, 2.07)

Reference 1.00 (0.56, 1.78) 1.12 (0.59, 2.13)

Reference 0.91 (0.50, 1.63) 1.02 (0.48, 2.13)

All 3 controlled

High Medium Low

Reference 1.19 (0.59, 2.41) 0.73 (0.32, 1.63)

Reference 1.34 (0.65, 2.78) 0.57 (0.25, 1.28)

Reference 1.38 (0.65, 2.94) 0.61 (0.27, 1.38)

Reference 1.51 (0.66, 3.45) 0.68 (0.25, 1.84)

Outcome

Racial Discrimination Category

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

HbA1c controlled (<7.0%)

No Experiences 1-2 Experiences 3þ Experiences

Reference 0.97 (0.54, 1.74) 0.98 (0.55, 1.76)

Reference 0.95 (0.48, 1.86) 0.91 (0.46, 1.78)

Reference 0.96 (0.48, 1.95) 0.95 (0.48, 1.88)

Reference 0.93 (0.45, 1.93) 0.90 (0.43, 1.87)

SBP controlled (<130 mm Hg)

No Experiences 1-2 Experiences 3þ Experiences

Reference 0.71 (0.36, 1.37) 1.12 (0.57, 2.18)

Reference 0.69 (0.33, 1.42) 1.24 (0.59, 2.61)

Reference 0.60 (0.29, 1.28) 1.15 (0.53, 2.50)

Reference 0.59 (0.28, 1.26) 1.12 (0.51, 2.43)

LDL controlled (<100 mg/dL)

No Experiences 1-2 Experiences 3þ Experiences

Reference 1.02 (0.58, 1.79) 1.35 (0.75, 2.45)

Reference 1.14 (0.63, 2.07) 1.52 (0.79, 2.91)

Reference 1.13 (0.61, 2.07) 1.58 (0.81, 3.05)

Reference 1.09 (0.58, 2.05) 1.53 (0.79, 2.98)

All 3 controlled

No Experiences 1-2 Experiences 3þ Experiences

Reference 1.04 (0.45, 2.42) 1.11 (0.53, 2.30)

Reference 1.04 (0.42, 2.57) 1.02 (0.46, 2.26)

Reference 1.03 (0.40, 2.62) 1.01 (0.44, 2.28)

Reference 1.00 (0.39, 2.58) 0.98 (0.43, 2.25)

OR: odds ratio; SBP: systolic blood pressure; LDL: low density lipoprotein cholesterol. a Racial residential segregation categorized into high, medium, and low using the value of the local Gi* statistic, which measures the deviation of the census tract’s racial composition from that of the larger metropolitan area. A Gi* statistic z-score <0 was categorized as low, 0 to 1.96 as medium, and >1.96 as high segregation. Segregation category was treated as time-varying in these models. b Racial discrimination was assessed via survey. Participants reported whether they had experienced discrimination in any of 7 domains (e.g. school, getting a job, work, getting housing, getting medical care, on the street or in a public setting, from the police or in the courts). Discrimination was categorized as no experiences, 1–2 experiences, or 3þ experiences. Discrimination was treated as time-varying in these models. c Results are from generalized estimating equations (GEE)logistic regression models with an exchangeable covariance structure, accounting for clustering by participant across 2 exams (year 20 and year 25). Models included participant exam-years after diabetes development at which participants indicated a medical professional had diagnosed them with diabetes (n ¼ 305 exam-years total from 208 participants). Model 1 was unadjusted. Model 2 adjusted for baseline age, sex, field center, parental history of diabetes, time-varying education, marital status, diabetes duration, and use of diabetes medication, antihypertensive medication, and cholesterol-lowering medication. Model 3 additionally adjusted for time-varying smoking status, alcohol use, physical activity, diet score, waist circumference, and depressive symptoms. Model 4 additionally adjusted for census tract poverty and population density.

examining diabetes mortality defined segregation using neighborhood-level racial composition (Hunt et al., 2014) and a city-level isolation index, respectively (Rosenstock et al., 2014). The variation in how segregation is measured makes it difficult to directly compare between studies. While segregation is a multi-dimensional construct (Massey and Denton, 1988), we chose to use the Gi*statistic because this approach, by comparing the racial composition of a census tract and its neighbors to that of the larger metropolitan area, better reflects the spatial and contextual aspects of segregation. The effect of segregation on socioeconomic opportunity and environmental expo­ sures among residents may differ depending on how a neighborhood’s composition compares to the larger area in which the neighborhood is situated. Our finding that experiences of interpersonal racial discrimination were not associated with diabetes incidence is in contrast to results from the Black Women’s Health Study, in which perceived discrimination was associated with greater risk of incident diabetes (Bacon et al., 2017). In the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, perceived discrimination was associated with incident diabetes in the full population of 5,310 black,

white, Hispanic, and Chinese participants (Whitaker et al., 2017). However, in race-stratified results that focused on experiences of discrimination attributed to race/ethnicity in particular, perceived racial discrimination was not associated with incident diabetes among black participants (Whitaker et al., 2017), which is consistent with our findings. Both studies assessed experiences of discrimination using a similar approach to CARDIA, by assessing whether participants had ever experienced discrimination across a range of situations, although the specific set of situations differed between the three studies (Bacon et al., 2017; Krieger and Sidney, 1996; Whitaker et al., 2017). No prior studies have examined associations of segregation with diabetes management among people that have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (Kershaw and Pender, 2016). Findings have been mixed regarding associations between interpersonal racial discrimination and diabetes management among black participants. For example, frequency of racial discrimination in the past 12 months was associated with higher SBP among black diabetes patients in the southeastern United States, but not with HbA1c or LDL (Dawson et al., 2015). Racial discrimination was also not associated with HbA1c among black women 7

S.L. Mayne et al.

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 5 Associations of racial residential segregation and racial discrimination with continuous measures of diabetes management after diagnosisa,b,c. Mean Difference (95% CI) Outcome Continuous HbA1c (%)

Segregation Category High Medium Low

Model 1 Reference 0.21 (-0.32, 0.74) 0.25 (-0.31, 0.81)

Model 2 Reference 0.27 (-0.26, 0.79) 0.22 (-0.35, 0.79)

Model 3 Reference 0.23 (-0.27, 0.73) 0.18 (-0.37, 0.74)

Model 4 Reference 0.06 (-0.50, 0.62) -0.09 (-0.75, 0.58)

Continuous SBP (in mmHg)

High Medium Low

Reference -0.54 (-5.13, 4.06) -0.87 (-5.64, 4.00)

Reference -0.64 (-5.79, 4.51) -0.10 (-5.04, 4.85)

Reference -0.34 (-6.04, 5.36) 1.05 (-7.17, 7.28)

Reference -0.60 (-7.67, 6.48) 1.76 (-7.13, 10.66)

Continuous LDL cholesterol (in mg/dL)

High Medium Low

Reference -9.93 (-19.03, -0.83) -6.86 (-16.36, 2.64)

Reference -8.63 (-17.65, 0.38) -5.45 (-16.00, 5.09)

Reference -9.41 (-18.40, -0.41) -6.00 (-16.85, 4.84)

Reference -8.15 (-18.28, 1.99) -7.71 (-22.28, 6.87)

Outcome

Racial Discrimination Category

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Continuous HbA1c (%)

No Experiences 1-2 Experiences 3þ Experiences

Reference -0.11 (-0.64, 0.43) 0.09 (-0.42, 0.61)

Reference -0.10 (-0.63, 0.43) 0.19 (-0.30, 0.69)

Reference -0.12 (-0.63, 0.39) 0.17 (-0.30, 0.64)

Reference -0.11 (-0.63, 0.41) 0.19 (-0.29, 0.67)

Continuous SBP (in mmHg)

No Experiences 1-2 Experiences 3þ Experiences

Reference 0.98 (-3.50, 5.47) -0.95 (-5.15, 3.26)

Reference 1.43 (-3.09, 5.96) -1.03 (-5.41, 3.34)

Reference 3.81 (-3.13, 10.76) 2.02 (-5.13, 9.18)

Reference 5.52 (-1.93, 12.97) 4.16 (-3.56, 11.88)

Continuous LDL cholesterol (in mg/dL)

No Experiences 1-2 Experiences 3þ Experiences

Reference 3.54 (-4.82, 11.90) 0.24 (-8.72, 9.21)

Reference 2.13 (-5.91, 10.17) 0.86 (-7.97, 9.69)

Reference 2.87 (-5.35, 11.09) 1.18 (-8.24, 10.60)

Reference 4.73 (-6.26, 15.71) 4.39 (-11.88, 20.66)

SBP: systolic blood pressure; LDL: low density lipoprotein. a Racial residential segregation categorized into high, medium, and low using the value of the local Gi* statistic, which measures the deviation of the census tract’s racial composition from that of the larger metropolitan area. A Gi* statistic z-score <0 was categorized as low, 0 to 1.96 as medium, and >1.96 as high segregation. Segregation category was treated as time-varying in these models. b Racial discrimination was assessed via survey. Participants reported whether they had experienced discrimination in any of 7 domains (e.g. school, getting a job, work, getting housing, getting medical care, on the street or in a public setting, from the police or in the courts). Discrimination was categorized as no experiences, 1–2 experiences, or 3þ experiences. Discrimination was treated as time-varying in these models. c Results are from generalized estimating equations (GEE)linear regression models with an exchangeable covariance structure, accounting for clustering by participant across 2 exams (year 20 and year 25). Models included participant exam-years after diabetes development at which participants indicated a medical professional had diagnosed them with diabetes (n ¼ 305 exam-years total from 208 participants). Model 1 was unadjusted. Model 2 adjusted for baseline age, sex, field center, parental history of diabetes, time-varying education, marital status, diabetes duration, and use of diabetes medication, antihypertensive medication, and cholesterol-lowering medication. Model 3 additionally adjusted for time-varying smoking status, alcohol use, physical activity, diet score, waist circumference, and depressive symptoms. Model 4 additionally adjusted for census tract poverty and population density.

level risk factors, there is still the potential for residual confounding due to unmeasured factors. Third, over 80% of participants lived in high segregation census tracts at baseline. While segregation levels varied to a greater extent in later years after some participants moved, there may not have been sufficient variability in segregation to observe an asso­ ciation with diabetes incidence or management. Future work is needed in other populations. In addition, it is possible that racial residential segregation and racial discrimination are more relevant to other out­ comes such as diabetes mortality or complications. We were unable to examine these outcomes due to the young age of the study population (limiting assessment of cause-specific mortality) and due to lack of availability on diabetes complications (e.g. retinopathy). However, assessing the associations of segregation and discrimination with these outcomes in longitudinal studies is an important area for future research. Finally, as noted above, the small number of participants included in the diabetes management analysis may limit generalizability of our findings.

with diabetes in Connecticut (Wagner et al., 2013), and was associated with higher levels of HbA1c only among black men in a study of 163 black diabetes patients from the midwestern United States (Assari et al., 2017). Our results do not support an association of either interpersonal or structural racial discrimination with diabetes management, and we did not detect evidence of an interaction by sex. It should be noted that only 208 participants were available for this analysis based on data limitations for HbA1c, loss to follow-up, and because many participants who met our clinical definition for diabetes were unaware that they had diabetes prior to the exam. This limited our sample size and potentially our ability to detect associations- for example, between interpersonal racial discrimination and systolic blood pressure. Past studies have also generally had small sample sizes (range 77–391 participants), and typically enrolled patients from a single geographic area (Assari et al., 2017; Dawson et al., 2015; Wagner et al., 2013). CARDIA participants were enrolled from 4 urban areas in different regions of the U.S. and lived in all 50 states by year 25 (Funkhouser et al., 2018). However, the small sample size included in the diabetes management analysis may limit generalizability. This study had several limitations in addition to the small sample size available for the diabetes management analysis. First, not all compo­ nents of our diabetes definition (e.g. oral glucose tolerance test or HbA1C) were available at every exam, which may have led to misclas­ sification of participants with underlying diabetes that was not detected using fasting glucose or medication use alone. Second, while we controlled for neighborhood characteristics and a variety of individual-

5. Conclusion We found limited evidence of an association between racial resi­ dential segregation, interpersonal racial discrimination, and diabetes incidence or management among a cohort of black young to middleaged U.S. adults. Areas for future research include longitudinal studies investigating whether racial residential segregation is associated with diabetes mortality and complications. 8

S.L. Mayne et al.

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

Declaration of competing interest

Friedman, G.D., Cutter, G.R., Donahue, R.P., Hughes, G.H., Hulley, S.B., Jacobs Jr., D.R., Liu, K., Savage, P.J., 1988. CARDIA: study design, recruitment, and some characteristics of the examined subjects. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 41, 1105–1116. Funkhouser, E., Wammack, J., Roche, C., Reis, J., Sidney, S., Schreiner, P., 2018. Where are they now? Retention strategies over 25 years in the coronary Artery risk development in young adults (CARDIA) study. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 9, 64–70. Gaskin, D.J., Dinwiddie, G.Y., Chan, K.S., McCleary, R.R., 2012. Residential segregation and the availability of primary care physicians. Health Serv. Res. 47, 2353–2376. Gaskin, D.J., Thorpe Jr., R.J., McGinty, E.E., Bower, K., Rohde, C., Young, J.H., LaVeist, T.A., Dubay, L., 2014. Disparities in diabetes: the nexus of race, poverty, and place. Am. J. Public Health 104, 2147–2155. Geiss, L.S., Wang, J., Cheng, Y.J., Thompson, T.J., Barker, L., Li, Y., Albright, A.L., Gregg, E.W., 2014. Prevalence and incidence trends for diagnosed diabetes among adults aged 20 to 79 years, United States, 1980-2012. Jama 312, 1218–1226. Getis, A., Ord, J.K., 1992. The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geogr. Anal. 24, 189–206. Goodman, M., Lyons, S., Dean, L.T., Arroyo, C., Hipp, J.A., 2018. How segregation makes us fat: food behaviors and food environment as mediators of the relationship between residential segregation and individual body mass index. Front Public Health 6, 92. Hunt, B.R., Whitman, S., Henry, C.A., 2014. Age-adjusted diabetes mortality rates vary in local communities in a metropolitan area: racial and spatial disparities and correlates. Diabetes Care 37, 1279–1286. Ikramuddin, S., Korner, J., Lee, W.J., Connett, J.E., Inabnet, W.B., Billington, C.J., Thomas, A.J., Leslie, D.B., Chong, K., Jeffery, R.W., Ahmed, L., Vella, A., Chuang, L. M., Bessler, M., Sarr, M.G., Swain, J.M., Laqua, P., Jensen, M.D., Bantle, J.P., 2013. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass vs intensive medical management for the control of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia: the Diabetes Surgery Study randomized clinical trial. Jama 309, 2240–2249. Jellinger, P.S., Handelsman, Y., Rosenblit, P.D., Bloomgarden, Z.T., Fonseca, V.A., Garber, A.J., Grunberger, G., Guerin, C.K., Bell, D.S.H., Mechanick, J.I., PessahPollack, R., Wyne, K., Smith, D., Brinton, E.A., Fazio, S., Davidson, M., 2017. AMERICAN association OF clinical endocrinologists and AMERICAN college OF endocrinology guidelines for management OF dyslipidemia and prevention OF cardiovascular disease. Endocr. Pract. 23, 1–87. Kershaw, K.N., Albrecht, S.S., 2015. Racial/ethnic residential segregation and cardiovascular disease risk. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 9. Kershaw, K.N., Pender, A.E., 2016. Racial/ethnic residential segregation, obesity, and diabetes mellitus. Curr. Diabetes Rep. 16, 108. Kershaw, K.N., Robinson, W.R., Gordon-Larsen, P., Hicken, M.T., Goff Jr., D.C., Carnethon, M.R., Kiefe, C.I., Sidney, S., Diez Roux, A.V., 2017. Association of changes in neighborhood-level racial residential segregation with changes in blood pressure among black adults: the CARDIA study. JAMA Intern Med 177, 996–1002. Kramer, M.R., Hogue, C.R., 2009. Is segregation bad for your health? Epidemiol. Rev. 31, 178–194. Krieger, N., Sidney, S., 1996. Racial discrimination and blood pressure: the CARDIA Study of young black and white adults. Am. J. Public Health 86, 1370–1378. Krieger, N., Sidney, S., Coakley, E., 1998. Racial discrimination and skin color in the CARDIA study: implications for public health research. Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults. Am. J. Public Health 88, 1308–1313. Krieger, N., Smith, K., Naishadham, D., Hartman, C., Barbeau, E.M., 2005. Experiences of discrimination: validity and reliability of a self-report measure for population health research on racism and health. Soc. Sci. Med. 61, 1576–1596. Massey, D.S., Denton, N.A., 1988. The dimensions of residential segregation. Soc. Forces 67, 281–315. Mayne, S.L., Hicken, M.T., Merkin, S.S., Seeman, T.E., Kershaw, K.N., Do, D.P., Hajat, A., Diez Roux, A.V., 2019. Neighbourhood racial/ethnic residential segregation and cardiometabolic risk: the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 73, 26–33. McFarlane, S.I., Jacober, S.J., Winer, N., Kaur, J., Castro, J.P., Wui, M.A., Gliwa, A., Von Gizycki, H., Sowers, J.R., 2002. Control of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with diabetes and hypertension at urban academic medical centers. Diabetes Care 25, 718–723. Meng, Y.Y., Diamant, A., Jones, J., Lin, W., Chen, X., Wu, S.H., Pourat, N., Roby, D., Kominski, G.F., 2016. Racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes care and impact of vendor-based disease management programs. Diabetes Care 39, 743–749. Menke, A., Casagrande, S., Geiss, L., Cowie, C.C., 2015. Prevalence of and trends in diabetes among adults in the United States, 1988-2012. Jama 314, 1021–1029. Piccolo, R.S., Duncan, D.T., Pearce, N., McKinlay, J.B., 2015. The role of neighborhood characteristics in racial/ethnic disparities in type 2 diabetes: results from the Boston Area Community Health (BACH) Survey. Soc. Sci. Med. 130, 79–90. Pool, L.R., Carnethon, M.R., Goff Jr., D.C., Gordon-Larsen, P., Robinson, W.R., Kershaw, K.N., 2018. Longitudinal associations of neighborhood-level racial residential segregation with obesity among blacks. Epidemiology 29, 207–214. Rosenstock, S., Whitman, S., West, J.F., Balkin, M., 2014. Racial disparities in diabetes mortality in the 50 most populous US cities. J. Urban Health 91, 873–885. Sims, M., Diez-Roux, A.V., Dudley, A., Gebreab, S., Wyatt, S.B., Bruce, M.A., James, S.A., Robinson, J.C., Williams, D.R., Taylor, H.A., 2012. Perceived discrimination and hypertension among african Americans in the jackson Heart study. Am. J. Public Health 102 (2), S258–S265. Stepanikova, I., Baker, E.H., Simoni, Z.R., Zhu, A., Rutland, S.B., Sims, M., Wilkinson, L. L., 2017. The role of perceived discrimination in obesity among african Americans. Am. J. Prev. Med. 52, S77–S85. Wagner, J.A., Tennen, H., Feinn, R., Finan, P.H., 2013. Racial discrimination and metabolic control in women with type 2 diabetes. Ethn. Dis. 23, 421–427.

None. Acknowledgements The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) study is supported by contracts HHSN268201300025C, HHSN 268201300026C, HHSN268201300027C, HHSN268201300028C, HHSN268201300029C, and HHSN268200900041C from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI); the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging (NIA); and intra-agency agreement AG0005 between the NIA and NHLBI. The neighborhood measures used in this research were developed with grants R01HL104580 and R01HL114091 from the NHLBI. SLM and MPB were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number T32HL069771 to conduct the current work. NIH had no role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. This manuscript has been reviewed by CARDIA for scientific content. Data are available from the CARDIA Study, whose authors and paper proposal forms may be contacted at: http://www.cardia.dopm.uab.edu/. The contact person for paper proposals is Linda Sellers: [email protected]. This dataset is not able to be provided as the data are controlled by the CARDIA investigators to ensure that there are no overlapping CARDIA paper and presentation publications. Any author who wishes to obtain the data may do so after having a manuscript proposal approved by the CARDIA steering committee. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102286. References American Diabetes Association, 2018. Standards of medical care in diabetes-2018 abridged for primary care providers. Clin. Diabetes 36, 14–37. Assari, S., Lee, D.B., Nicklett, E.J., Moghani Lankarani, M., Piette, J.D., Aikens, J.E., 2017. Racial discrimination in health care is associated with worse glycemic control among black men but not black women with type 2 diabetes. Front Public Health 5, 235. Bacon, K.L., Stuver, S.O., Cozier, Y.C., Palmer, J.R., Rosenberg, L., Ruiz-Narvaez, E.A., 2017. Perceived racism and incident diabetes in the black women’s health study. Diabetologia 60, 2221–2225. Bancks, M.P., Kershaw, K., Carson, A.P., Gordon-Larsen, P., Schreiner, P.J., Carnethon, M.R., 2017. Association of modifiable risk factors in young adulthood with racial disparity in incident type 2 diabetes during middle adulthood. Jama 318, 2457–2465. Borrell, L.N., Diez Roux, A.V., Jacobs Jr., D.R., Shea, S., Jackson, S.A., Shrager, S., Blumenthal, R.S., 2010. Perceived racial/ethnic discrimination, smoking and alcohol consumption in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). Prev. Med. 51, 307–312. Bower, K.M., Thorpe Jr., R.J., Yenokyan, G., McGinty, E.E., Dubay, L., Gaskin, D.J., 2015. Racial residential segregation and disparities in obesity among women. J. Urban Health 92, 843–852. Bravo, M.A., Anthopolos, R., Kimbro, R.T., Miranda, M.L., 2018. Residential racial isolation and spatial patterning of type 2 diabetes mellitus in durham, North Carolina. Am. J. Epidemiol. Cunningham, T.J., Berkman, L.F., Kawachi, I., Jacobs Jr., D.R., Seeman, T.E., Kiefe, C.I., Gortmaker, S.L., 2013. Changes in waist circumference and body mass index in the US CARDIA cohort: fixed-effects associations with self-reported experiences of racial/ethnic discrimination. J. Biosoc. Sci. 45, 267–278. Cunningham, T.J., Seeman, T.E., Kawachi, I., Gortmaker, S.L., Jacobs, D.R., Kiefe, C.I., Berkman, L.F., 2012. Racial/ethnic and gender differences in the association between self-reported experiences of racial/ethnic discrimination and inflammation in the CARDIA cohort of 4 US communities. Soc. Sci. Med. 75, 922–931. Dawson, A.Z., Walker, R.J., Campbell, J.A., Egede, L.E., 2015. Effect of perceived racial discrimination on self-care behaviors, glycemic control, and quality of life in adults with type 2 diabetes. Endocrine 49, 422–428. Friedewald, W.T., Levy, R.I., Fredrickson, D.S., 1972. Estimation of the concentration of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in plasma, without use of the preparative ultracentrifuge. Clin. Chem. 18, 499–502.

9

S.L. Mayne et al.

Health and Place xxx (xxxx) xxx

Whitaker, K.M., Everson-Rose, S.A., Pankow, J.S., Rodriguez, C.J., Lewis, T.T., Kershaw, K.N., Diez Roux, A.V., Lutsey, P.L., 2017. Experiences of discrimination and incident type 2 diabetes mellitus: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA). Am. J. Epidemiol. 186, 445–455.

Williams, D.R., Collins, C., 2001. Racial residential segregation: a fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Rep. 116, 404–416. Williams, D.R., Mohammed, S.A., 2009. Discrimination and racial disparities in health: evidence and needed research. J. Behav. Med. 32, 20–47.

10