Cardio-oncology & otherCohort study
Associations of Sociodemographic and Neighborhood Vulnerability With Cardiovascular Health in Midlife Women in the United States
- prospective cohort
- Linear spline mixed-effect models
- covariate adjustment
Authors' conclusion
Women from disadvantaged sociodemographic backgrounds or residing in vulnerable neighborhoods exhibit poorer CVH across the menopausal transition, highlighting opportunities to optimize long-term CVH and mitigate cardiovascular disease risk.
Study context
- Population
- Women in eastern Massachusetts enrolled during pregnancy (1999–2002) and followed to midlife (2019–2024)women (mean enrollment age, 32.1 years, 67.5% Non-Hispanic White)
- Participants
- 1,200 women
- Exposure
- residence in very high (versus very low) Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods from enrollment to 3-year follow-up
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Baseline characteristics
household incomes ≤$40 000/y
15.4%
≤high school education
8.8%
resided in very high Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods
17.4%
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
| Outcome | mean CVH difference (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Mean CVH score difference (Life's Essential 8, 0-100 points) · 3-, 8-, 13-, 18-, 23-year follow-up — very high Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods vs very low Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods · 3-year · Independent of individual sociodemographics | −6.7 (−12.3 to −1.2) | |
| Mean CVH score difference (Life's Essential 8, 0-100 points) · 3-, 8-, 13-, 18-, 23-year follow-up — very high Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods vs very low Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods · 8-year · Independent of individual sociodemographics | −9.8 (−15.6 to −4.0) | |
| Mean CVH score difference (Life's Essential 8, 0-100 points) · 3-, 8-, 13-, 18-, 23-year follow-up — very high Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods vs very low Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods · 13-year · Independent of individual sociodemographics | −8.9 (−13.9 to −3.9) | |
| Mean CVH score difference (Life's Essential 8, 0-100 points) · 3-, 8-, 13-, 18-, 23-year follow-up — very high Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods vs very low Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods · 18-year · Independent of individual sociodemographics | −6.7 (−12.9 to −0.5) | |
| Mean CVH score difference (Life's Essential 8, 0-100 points) · 3-, 8-, 13-, 18-, 23-year follow-up — very high Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods vs very low Social Vulnerability Index neighborhoods · Independent of individual sociodemographics | −7.2 (−12.5 to −1.9) | |
| −20−10010Difference (linear scale) |
| Outcome | difference in rate (points/y) (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| CVH score decline during premenopause · faster CVH score decline | −0.62 (−1.22 to −0.02) | |
| −1.5−1−0.500.5Difference, points/y (linear scale) |
Cardiovascular health (CVH) by individual sociodemographics · across follow-up
- women with lower income, lower education, or identifying as Non-Hispanic Black exhibited lower CVH across follow-up
- After covariate adjustment
Original publication
Associations of Sociodemographic and Neighborhood Vulnerability With Cardiovascular Health in Midlife Women in the United States. Circ Popul Health Outcomes. Published 17 July 2026. doi:10.1161/circoutcomes.126.013433
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it