County-level political group density, partisan polarization, and individual-level mortality among adults in the United States: A lagged multilevel study

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Sameera S. Nayak , Timothy Fraser , Daniel P. Aldrich , Costas Panagopoulos , Daniel Kim
{"title":"County-level political group density, partisan polarization, and individual-level mortality among adults in the United States: A lagged multilevel study","authors":"Sameera S. Nayak ,&nbsp;Timothy Fraser ,&nbsp;Daniel P. Aldrich ,&nbsp;Costas Panagopoulos ,&nbsp;Daniel Kim","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmph.2024.101662","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To investigate the associations between county-level political group density, partisan polarization, and individual-level mortality from all causes and from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Using data from five survey waves (1998–2006) of the General Social Survey-National Death Index dataset and the County Presidential Election Return 2000 dataset, we fit weighted Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the associations between (1) political group density and (2) partisan polarization measured at the county level in 2000 (n = 313 counties) categorized into quartiles with individual-level mortality (n = 14,983 participants) from all causes and CHD, controlling for individual- and county-level factors. Maximum follow-up was from one year after the survey up until 2014. We conducted these analyses using two separate measures based on county-level vote share differences and party affiliation ideological extremes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the overall sample, we found no evidence of associations between county-level political group density and individual-level mortality from all causes. There was evidence of a 13% higher risk of dying from heart disease in the highest quartile of county-level polarization (hazards ratio, HR = 1.13; 95% CI = 0.74–1.71). We observed heterogeneity of effects based on individual-level political affiliation. Among those identifying as Democrats, residing in counties with high (vs. low) levels of polarization appeared to be protective against mortality, with an associated 18% lower risk of dying from all causes (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.71–0.94). This association was strongest in areas with the highest concentrations of Democrats.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Among all study participants, political group density and polarization at the county level in 2000 were not linked to individual-level mortality. At the same time, we found that Democratic party affiliation may be protective against the adverse effects of high polarization, particularly in counties with high concentrations of Democrats. Future research should further explore these associations to potentially identify new structural interventions to address political determinants of population health.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47780,"journal":{"name":"Ssm-Population Health","volume":"26 ","pages":"Article 101662"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827324000636/pdfft?md5=04bc4dfd3147f5e3d43c30cf50f9583d&pid=1-s2.0-S2352827324000636-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ssm-Population Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352827324000636","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the associations between county-level political group density, partisan polarization, and individual-level mortality from all causes and from coronary heart disease (CHD) in the United States.

Methods

Using data from five survey waves (1998–2006) of the General Social Survey-National Death Index dataset and the County Presidential Election Return 2000 dataset, we fit weighted Cox proportional hazards models to estimate the associations between (1) political group density and (2) partisan polarization measured at the county level in 2000 (n = 313 counties) categorized into quartiles with individual-level mortality (n = 14,983 participants) from all causes and CHD, controlling for individual- and county-level factors. Maximum follow-up was from one year after the survey up until 2014. We conducted these analyses using two separate measures based on county-level vote share differences and party affiliation ideological extremes.

Results

In the overall sample, we found no evidence of associations between county-level political group density and individual-level mortality from all causes. There was evidence of a 13% higher risk of dying from heart disease in the highest quartile of county-level polarization (hazards ratio, HR = 1.13; 95% CI = 0.74–1.71). We observed heterogeneity of effects based on individual-level political affiliation. Among those identifying as Democrats, residing in counties with high (vs. low) levels of polarization appeared to be protective against mortality, with an associated 18% lower risk of dying from all causes (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.71–0.94). This association was strongest in areas with the highest concentrations of Democrats.

Conclusions

Among all study participants, political group density and polarization at the county level in 2000 were not linked to individual-level mortality. At the same time, we found that Democratic party affiliation may be protective against the adverse effects of high polarization, particularly in counties with high concentrations of Democrats. Future research should further explore these associations to potentially identify new structural interventions to address political determinants of population health.

美国成年人的县级政治团体密度、党派两极分化和个人死亡率:滞后多层次研究
目的研究美国县级政治团体密度、党派两极化与个人因各种原因和冠心病(CHD)导致的死亡率之间的关系。方法利用五次调查波次(1998-2006 年)的一般社会调查-全国死亡指数数据集和 2000 年县级总统选举报表数据集的数据,我们拟合了加权 Cox 比例危险模型,以估算 2000 年县级(n = 313 个县)的(1)政治团体密度和(2)党派两极分化与所有原因和冠心病的个人死亡率(n = 14,983 名参与者)之间的关联,并对个人和县级因素进行了控制。最长随访时间为调查后一年至 2014 年。我们使用基于县级选票份额差异和党派意识形态极端化的两种不同测量方法进行了上述分析。结果在总体样本中,我们没有发现县级政治团体密度与个人因各种原因导致的死亡率之间存在关联的证据。有证据表明,在县级两极分化程度最高的四分位数中,死于心脏病的风险要高出 13%(危险比,HR = 1.13;95% CI = 0.74-1.71)。我们观察到基于个人政治派别的异质性影响。在那些被认定为民主党人的人群中,居住在两极分化程度较高(与较低)的县似乎对死亡率有保护作用,因各种原因死亡的风险降低了 18%(HR = 0.82,95% CI = 0.71-0.94)。结论在所有研究参与者中,2000 年县级政治团体密度和两极分化与个人死亡率无关。同时,我们发现民主党党派归属可能对高度两极分化的不利影响具有保护作用,尤其是在民主党人高度集中的县。未来的研究应进一步探讨这些关联,以确定新的结构性干预措施,解决人口健康的政治决定因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ssm-Population Health
Ssm-Population Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.10%
发文量
298
审稿时长
101 days
期刊介绍: SSM - Population Health. The new online only, open access, peer reviewed journal in all areas relating Social Science research to population health. SSM - Population Health shares the same Editors-in Chief and general approach to manuscripts as its sister journal, Social Science & Medicine. The journal takes a broad approach to the field especially welcoming interdisciplinary papers from across the Social Sciences and allied areas. SSM - Population Health offers an alternative outlet for work which might not be considered, or is classed as ''out of scope'' elsewhere, and prioritizes fast peer review and publication to the benefit of authors and readers. The journal welcomes all types of paper from traditional primary research articles, replication studies, short communications, methodological studies, instrument validation, opinion pieces, literature reviews, etc. SSM - Population Health also offers the opportunity to publish special issues or sections to reflect current interest and research in topical or developing areas. The journal fully supports authors wanting to present their research in an innovative fashion though the use of multimedia formats.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信