Explaining disparities in cognitive functioning: a test of competing hypotheses.

IF 1.2 4区 社会学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Hui-Peng Liew
{"title":"Explaining disparities in cognitive functioning: a test of competing hypotheses.","authors":"Hui-Peng Liew","doi":"10.1332/175795921X16836624887393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study seeks to examine how the trajectories of total cognition scores exhibited by two birth cohorts vary by race/ethnicity, gender and the level of education. The empirical work of this study is be based on the 1998-2014 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and the HRS Cross-Wave Tracker file. The analysis is limited to individuals with available information on cognitive functioning, sex, race/ethnicity, wave, highest level of education, and the physical comorbidities associated with cognitive functioning (20,985 from the Traditionalist cohort and 11,077 from the Baby Boomer cohort). Growth curve modelling is used to assess the aims of this study. Findings reveal that the cumulative advantage (disadvantage), persistent inequality and age-as-leveller hypotheses explain heterogeneity in total cognition scores for different race/ethnicity-sex groups, race/ethnicity-education and education-sex groups. These findings suggest that the development of an integrated treatment and screening mechanisms for physical comorbidities and cognitive functioning, and for the design of preventive strategies with the purpose of slowing or avoiding cognitive decline and maintaining healthy cognitive function should have a particular focus on females, racial ethnic minorities and those with low education.</p>","PeriodicalId":45988,"journal":{"name":"Longitudinal and Life Course Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Longitudinal and Life Course Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/175795921X16836624887393","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study seeks to examine how the trajectories of total cognition scores exhibited by two birth cohorts vary by race/ethnicity, gender and the level of education. The empirical work of this study is be based on the 1998-2014 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) and the HRS Cross-Wave Tracker file. The analysis is limited to individuals with available information on cognitive functioning, sex, race/ethnicity, wave, highest level of education, and the physical comorbidities associated with cognitive functioning (20,985 from the Traditionalist cohort and 11,077 from the Baby Boomer cohort). Growth curve modelling is used to assess the aims of this study. Findings reveal that the cumulative advantage (disadvantage), persistent inequality and age-as-leveller hypotheses explain heterogeneity in total cognition scores for different race/ethnicity-sex groups, race/ethnicity-education and education-sex groups. These findings suggest that the development of an integrated treatment and screening mechanisms for physical comorbidities and cognitive functioning, and for the design of preventive strategies with the purpose of slowing or avoiding cognitive decline and maintaining healthy cognitive function should have a particular focus on females, racial ethnic minorities and those with low education.

解释认知功能的差异:竞争性假设的测试
这项研究试图检验两个出生队列的认知总分轨迹如何因种族/民族、性别和教育水平而变化。本研究的实证工作基于1998-2004年健康与退休研究(HRS)和HRS跨波跟踪器文件。该分析仅限于具有认知功能、性别、种族/民族、波动、最高教育水平和与认知功能相关的身体合并症等可用信息的个体(20985名来自传统主义者队列,11077名来自婴儿潮一代队列)。生长曲线模型用于评估本研究的目的。研究结果表明,累积优势(劣势)、持续的不平等和年龄作为平级假设解释了不同种族/民族-性别群体、种族/民族–教育和教育-性别群体的总认知得分的异质性。这些发现表明,针对身体合并症和认知功能的综合治疗和筛查机制的开发,以及旨在减缓或避免认知能力下降和保持健康认知功能的预防策略的设计,应特别关注女性、少数民族和低教育程度者。
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
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.10%
发文量
43
×
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