Associations of Sociodemographic and Neighborhood Vulnerability With Cardiovascular Health in Midlife Women in the United States
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
Methodological detailsLinear spline mixed-effect models, covariate adjustment
- Linear spline mixed-effect models
- Covariate adjustment
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.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it