Education, Income, Wealth, and Discrimination in Black-White Allostatic Load Disparities.

INTRODUCTION: Allostatic load (AL) is a significant marker of aging, associated with disease and mortality. Research has elucidated the impact of education and income on AL. However, the roles of wealth and discrimination in contributing to AL and shaping AL disparities remain underexplored. This study aimed to investigate the association between wealth and AL, while also examining the independent contributions of education, income, wealth, and everyday discrimination in shaping AL disparities. METHODS: Using 2016 data from the nationally representative Health and Retirement Study (N=3,866), this study employed multilinear regression analysis to quantify the association between education and income, wealth (calculated as assets minus debts), and everyday discrimination with AL. Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition analysis was conducted to determine the proportion of AL disparities between Black and White participants attributed to education and income, wealth, and everyday discrimination. Analyses were performed in 2023. RESULTS: Having a college degree or more (b = -0.32; 95% CI: -0.46, -0.17), higher income (b = -0.06; 95% CI: -0.11, -0.01), and greater wealth (b = -0.11; 95% CI: -0.16, -0.07) were linked to reduced AL. Conversely, increased experiences of everyday discrimination were associated with heightened AL (b = 0.07; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.16). Collectively, differences in possessing a college degree or more, wealth, and exposure to discrimination accounted for about 18% of the observed Black-White AL disparities. CONCLUSIONS: Education, income, wealth, and experiences of discrimination may independently contribute to AL and partially explain Black-White disparities in AL. There is a need to elucidate the underlying mechanisms governing these relationships, particularly wealth, and extend the research to additional social determinants of racial health disparities.

The cost of doubt: assessing the association between attributional ambiguity and mental health.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the association between attributional ambiguity-the uncertainty of whether an experience is discrimination-and mental health. METHODS: Using a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults recruited through an online survey by Ipsos (April 23 and May 3, 2021), attributional ambiguity was quantified by asking participants if they experienced anything in the past 6 months that they were unsure was discrimination. The survey also assessed the degree to which these experiences caused participants to feel bothered and to ruminate on them. Multiple linear regression models were used to analyze associations between attributional ambiguity and depressive symptoms and mental health status. RESULTS: Black and Hispanic participants reported higher rates of attributional ambiguity than White participants. Experiencing attributional ambiguity was associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms and poorer self-reported mental health status. Among those who reported attributional ambiguity, increases in bother and rumination scores were positively associated with depressive symptoms. CONCLUSION: Attributional ambiguity is an important yet overlooked social determinant of mental health. More research is needed to fully understand the impact of this stressor on population health, particularly among minoritized populations.