Search PubMedSearch

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “SDOH”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Association between cumulative social disadvantage, as measured by the social determinants of health score, and epilepsy: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health (SDoH) shape access to care, health behaviors, and long-term outcomes, yet their cumulative relationship with epilepsy has not been well quantified. This study examined whether a composite SDoH score was associated with epilepsy in adults. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2018. The SDoH score ranged from 0 to 8 and summarized eight unfavorable social conditions. Epilepsy was identified using medication-based ascertainment. Survey-weighted logistic regression models were applied to evaluate the association between SDoH score and epilepsy. Restricted cubic spline, subgroup, sensitivity, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were also performed. RESULTS: A total of 13,119 participants were included, of whom 114 had epilepsy. Participants with epilepsy had a higher mean SDoH score than those without epilepsy (3.41&#xa0;&#xb1;&#xa0;0.24 vs. 2.35&#xa0;&#xb1;&#xa0;0.06, P&#xa0;<&#xa0;0.001). In the fully adjusted model, each 1-point increase in SDoH score was associated with 31% higher odds of epilepsy (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16-1.48). Compared with the low-score group (0-2), the adjusted odds ratios were 2.09 (95% CI 1.06-4.15) for scores of 3-5 and 2.67 (95% CI 1.34-5.33) for scores of 6-8. Spline analysis showed a significant overall association without evidence of nonlinearity. Adding SDoH components to demographic variables improved model discrimination (AUC 0.731 vs. 0.589, P for difference <0.001). CONCLUSION: Greater cumulative social disadvantage, as reflected by the SDoH score, was associated with higher odds of epilepsy.

Humans

Assessment of Methodological Bias in Studies Reporting Racial Differences in Retinopathy of Prematurity in the United States.

PURPOSE: To assess methodological biases in studies reporting racial and ethnic differences in retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). METHODS: Systematic review of peer-reviewed studies published between 2014 and 2024 that reported on ROP outcome measures by race, ethnicity, or social determinants of health (SDOH). Three reviewers independently assessed each observation for selection and collider bias using definitions derived from perinatal epidemiology literature. Findings were also compared using a structured comparative synthesis between studies with and without identified methodological bias. RESULTS: A structured PubMed search identified 78 articles; 13&#x2009;met inclusion criteria, with one study contributing two distinct analytical approaches, yielding 14 total observations. Survivorship bias was identified in 6 of 14 observations (42.9%), primarily due to the exclusion of infants who died prior to ROP screening. Potential collider bias was most common, found in 9 of 14 observations (64.3%), and was introduced through adjustment or stratification by gestational age and/or birthweight. Three studies did not exhibit either assessed biases. Among studies with identified bias, 8 of 10 observations reported lower ROP risk among Black versus White infants, whereas 3 of 4 observations without identified bias reported higher ROP risk or incidence among Black infants. CONCLUSION: Methodological biases in ROP studies investigating race or ethnicity are prevalent. Adjustment for gestational age or birthweight may introduce spurious race-ROP associations and contribute to paradoxical findings. Further exploration of the impact of SDOH on disease outcomes may reduce the misattribution of race as a biological risk factor and improve the interpretation of ROP disparities.

Collider bias