Trends in Reported Calcium and Magnesium Intake from Diet and Supplements by Demographic Factors: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2018.

BACKGROUND: Calcium and magnesium are important micronutrients necessary for normal body functioning. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to approximate usual nutrient intakes and estimate proportion of adults meeting the Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) of calcium and magnesium from diet, and diet plus supplements (total intake). Trends in the proportion of adults meeting the EAR were estimated by sex, age, and race and ethnicity. DESIGN: The study utilized data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a cross-sectional survey of a nationally representative sample of the US civilian and noninstitutionalized population. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: The continuous National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey survey data from 2003-2004 through 2017-2018 for dietary intake, and 2007-2008 through 2017-2018 for total intake were analyzed. The study sample included men and women (not lactating/pregnant) ages 19 years and older with 2 reliable 24-hour dietary recalls and energy intake >500 to <6,000 kcal/day (N = 35 037). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean daily intake and trends of proportion of adults meeting/exceeding the EAR for calcium and magnesium were estimated. STATISTICAL ANALYSES PERFORMED: The National Cancer Institute's method was used to calculate daily intakes for calcium and magnesium by demographic subgroups. SAS SURVEYMEAN and SURVEYFREQ procedures were used to estimate means ± SE for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables, and 2-sample t test for P values. Trends were estimated with National Cancer Institute's Joinpoint trend analysis program. RESULTS: Mean daily dietary calcium intake and proportions of adults meeting the EAR from both diet and supplements was lowest among women (859 mg [61.9%]), adults ages 71 years and older (865 mg [60.3%]) and non-Hispanic Black individuals (782 mg [48.6%]) compared with men, younger age groups, and other races and ethnicities. Magnesium intake reported from diet was lowest in adults ages 71 years and older (276 mg), whereas total magnesium intake and proportion of meeting the EAR from both diet and supplements was lowest in women (302 mg) and men (52%), respectively, adults ages 19 to 30 years (305 mg [48.5%]), and non-Hispanic Black individuals (274 mg [35.5%]). The trends in the proportion of women and non-Hispanic White adults meeting the EAR from total calcium intake decreased significantly (P < .05) by 2.9% and 2.0%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Women and adults ages 71 years and older had the lowest reported mean daily dietary calcium intake and proportion meeting the EAR for calcium from diet and supplements. Men and adults ages 19 to 30 years had the lowest proportion meeting the EAR for magnesium from diet and supplements with adults ages 19 to 30 years also having the lowest reported total magnesium intake from diet and supplements. Non-Hispanic Black individuals had the lowest proportion of meeting the EARs for calcium and magnesium from reported total intake. The trends in the proportion of women and non-Hispanic White individuals meeting the EARs for calcium through total intake decreased over time and remained stable in other subpopulations and for magnesium.

Comparison of the characteristics of the population eligible for lung cancer screening under 2013 and population newly eligible under 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations.

PURPOSE: In 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised their 2013 recommendations for lung cancer screening eligibility by lowering the pack-year history from 30+ to 20+ pack-years and the recommended age from 55 to 50 years. Simulation studies suggest that Black persons and females will benefit most from these changes, but it is unclear how the revised USPSTF recommendations will impact geographic, health-related, and other sociodemographic characteristics of those eligible. METHODS: This cross-sectional study employed data from the 2017-2020 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System surveys from 23 states to compare age, gender, race, marital, sexual orientation, education, employment, comorbidity, vaccination, region, and rurality characteristics of the eligible population according to the original 2013 USPSTF recommendations with the revised 2021 USPSTF recommendations using chi-squared tests. This study compared those originally eligible to those newly eligible using the BRFSS raking-dervived weighting variable. RESULTS: There were 30,190 study participants. The results of this study found that eligibility increased by 62.4% due to the revised recommendations. We found that the recommendation changes increased the proportion of eligible females (50.1% vs 44.1%), Black persons (9.2% vs 6.6%), Hispanic persons (4.4% vs 2.7%), persons aged 55-64 (55.8% vs 52.6%), urban-dwellers(88.3% vs 85.9%), unmarried (3.4% vs 2.5%) and never married (10.4% vs 6.6%) persons, as well as non-retirees (76.5% vs 56.1%) Respondents without comorbidities and COPD also increased. CONCLUSION: It is estimated that the revision of the lung cancer screening recommendations decreased eligibility disparities in sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, respiratory comorbidities, and vaccination status. Research will be necessary to estimate whether uptake patterns subsequently follow the expanded eligibility patterns.

The Problem Of The Color Line: Spatial Access To Hospital Services For Minoritized Racial And Ethnic Groups.

Examining how spatial access to health care varies across geography is key to documenting structural inequalities in the United States. In this article and the accompanying StoryMap, our team identified ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTAs) with the largest share of minoritized racial and ethnic populations and measured distances to the nearest hospital offering emergency services, trauma care, obstetrics, outpatient surgery, intensive care, and cardiac care. In rural areas, ZCTAs with high Black or American Indian/Alaska Native representation were significantly farther from services than ZCTAs with high White representation. The opposite was true for urban ZCTAs, with high White ZCTAs being farther from most services. These patterns likely result from a combination of housing policies that restrict housing opportunities and federal health policies that are based on service provision rather than community need. The findings also illustrate the difficulty of using a single metric-distance-to investigate access to care on a national scale.

Temporal Geospatial Analysis of COVID-19 Pre-Infection Determinants of Risk in South Carolina.

Disparities and their geospatial patterns exist in morbidity and mortality of COVID-19 patients. When it comes to the infection rate, there is a dearth of research with respect to the disparity structure, its geospatial characteristics, and the pre-infection determinants of risk (PIDRs). This work aimed to assess the temporal-geospatial associations between PIDRs and COVID-19 infection at the county level in South Carolina. We used the spatial error model (SEM), spatial lag model (SLM), and conditional autoregressive model (CAR) as global models and the geographically weighted regression model (GWR) as a local model. The data were retrieved from multiple sources including USAFacts, U.S. Census Bureau, and the Population Estimates Program. The percentage of males and the unemployed population were positively associated with geodistributions of COVID-19 infection (p values < 0.05) in global models throughout the time. The percentage of the white population and the obesity rate showed divergent spatial correlations at different times of the pandemic. GWR models fit better than global models, suggesting nonstationary correlations between a region and its neighbors. Characterized by temporal-geospatial patterns, disparities in COVID-19 infection rate and their PIDRs are different from the mortality and morbidity of COVID-19 patients. Our findings suggest the importance of prioritizing different populations and developing tailored interventions at different times of the pandemic.