scholarly journals Diagnosis and control of hypertension in the elderly populations of Japan and the United States

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasuhiko Saito ◽  
Shieva Davarian ◽  
Atsuhiko Takahashi ◽  
Edward Schneider ◽  
Eileen M. Crimmins
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Life Expectancy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Medical Care System ◽  
Treatment Of Hypertension ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Representative Samples ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Care System

The Japanese have the highest life expectancy in the world while the United States (U.S.) has relatively low life expectancy. Furthermore, the Americans have relatively poorer health compared to the Japanese. Examination of the treatment of specific conditions such as hypertension in these two countries may provide insights into how the health care system con-tributes to the relative health in these two countries. In this study, we focus on the treatment of hypertension, as this is the most common condition requiring therapeutic interventions in se-niors. This study examines hypertension diagnoses and controls in nationally representative samples of the older populations (68 years old or older) of Japan and the U.S. Data come from two nationally representative samples: the Nihon University Japanese Longitudinal Study of Aging (NUJLSOA) (n = 2,309) and the U.S. Health and Retirement (HRS) Study (n = 3,517). The overall prevalence of hypertension is higher in Japan than the U.S. Undiagnosed hyperten-sion is about four times higher in Japan than in the U.S., while the control of blood pressure is more than four times higher in the U.S. than in Japan. Thus, the use of antihypertensive medi-cation is much more frequent and more effective in the U.S. The medical care system seems to be more effective in controlling hypertension in the U.S. than in Japan. This may be due to the more aggressive diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in the U.S.

Gender and Marital Satisfaction: Data from the National Survey of Families and Households

1998 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 319-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter R. Schumm ◽  
Farrell J. Webb ◽  
Stephan R. Bollman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Marital Satisfaction ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Satisfaction Relationship ◽  
Representative Samples ◽  
Small Support

In 1972, Bernard argued that marriage was good for men and bad for women. Subsequent research noted that wives, on average, reported lower marital satisfaction than husbands. Furthermore, when differences within couples existed on marital satisfaction, the wife was usually the less satisfied spouse; however, most previous studies of the gender/marital satisfaction relationship had not been based on nationally representative samples. A nationally representative sample from the 1988 Survey of Families and Households was used to assess the relationship of gender with marital satisfaction. Within-couple analyses indicated that wives were less satisfied with their marriages than husbands and that, when substantial within-couple differences occurred with respect to marital satisfaction, the wife was usually the less satisfied spouse. Results provide at least small support for feminist assertions about the relatively adverse nature of marriage for women in the United States.

Can Information Decrease Political Polarization? Evidence From the U.S. Taxpayer Receipt

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. 736-745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik P. Duhaime ◽  
Evan P. Apfelbaum
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
White House ◽  
Contentious Issue ◽  
Baseline Levels ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
High Level ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Do So

Scholars, politicians, and laypeople alike bemoan the high level of political polarization in the United States, but little is known about how to bring the views of liberals and conservatives closer together. Previous research finds that providing people with information regarding a contentious issue is ineffective for reducing polarization because people process such information in a biased manner. Here, we show that information can reduce political polarization below baseline levels and also that its capacity to do so is sensitive to contextual factors that make one’s relevant preferences salient. Specifically, in a nationally representative sample (Study 1) and a preregistered replication (Study 2), we find that providing a taxpayer receipt—an impartial, objective breakdown of how one’s taxes are spent that is published annually by the White House—reduces polarization regarding taxes, but not when participants are also asked to indicate how they would prefer their taxes be spent.

The Latino Immigrants’ Experience in Obtaining Required Childhood Vaccinations

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-368
Author(s):  
Barbara S. deRose
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Latino Immigrants ◽  
Main Theme ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Foreign Born ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Care System

Introduction: Alarming increases in childhood disease outbreaks present particular threats to children of immigrants in the United States. The researcher explores issues Latino immigrants experience when vaccinating their children in U.S. health care system. Methodology: A purposive sample of 11 Latino immigrants who sought immunizations for their foreign-born children during their first 5 years in the United States was obtained. Interview questions, probes, and data collection methods were based on interpretive phenomenology. Results: Trust issues emerged as the main theme from the Latino immigrants’ perspective based on interactions with the health care system: trusting themselves as parents to vaccinate children, trusting/mistrusting the U.S. health care providers/facilities, and mistrusting the U.S. health care system. Discussion: The researcher reports disparities in access to health care within a family unit. Parental distress results when Latino immigrants experience health care disparities between U.S.-born and foreign-born children. This can be mitigated by making vaccination practices and health care policies consistent.

Prevalence and Demographic Differences in Work as a Calling in the United States: Results From a Nationally Representative Sample

2021 ◽  
pp. 106907272199569
Author(s):  
Micah J. White ◽  
Dylan R. Marsh ◽  
Bryan J. Dik ◽  
Cheryl L. Beseler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Panel Study ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Science Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Demographic Differences ◽  
Life Study ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
The U.S

Within the last two decades, social science research on work as a calling has rapidly grown. To date, knowledge regarding prevalence and demographic differences of calling in the United States derives from data collected mainly from regionally limited and/or occupationally homogenous samples. The present study used data from the Portraits of American Life Study, a nationally stratified panel study of religion in the United States (U.S.), to estimate calling’s prevalence in the U.S. Our findings represent the first known population estimates of seeking, perceiving, and living a calling in the U.S. Results revealed that calling is a relevant concept for many U.S. adults, with 43% endorsing “mostly true” or “totally true” to the statement “I have a calling to a particular kind of work.” Small differences for presence of and search for a calling emerged across age groups, employment statuses, and levels of importance of God or spirituality. For living a calling, significant differences were identified only for importance of God or spirituality, contrasting with previous findings that suggested that living a calling varies as a function of income and social status. Implications for research and practice are explored.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Are Lowest among Political Outsiders in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byungkyu Lee ◽  
James Chu
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
Longitudinal Survey ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Vaccination Rates ◽  
Longitudinal Survey Data ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
The U.S

Vaccine hesitancy is a critical barrier to widespread vaccination uptake and containment of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the United States, vaccines have become politically polarized, with high rates of vaccine hesitancy observed among Republicans. In contrast to prior research focusing on partisan gaps, we investigate vaccination attitudes and uptake among a group overlooked in prior research: those who are eligible to vote but did not register in the presidential elections. Drawing on nationally representative and longitudinal survey data from April 2020 to October 2021, we show that this group – whom we call “political outsiders” – represents about 16% of the U.S. population. They had the lowest vaccination rate (47%) by 2021 October, significantly lower than Republican (65%), Independent (76%), and Democratic voters (88%). Further, we find that political outsiders are less likely to trust physicians compared to other partisan groups. Because the sources they trust differ from partisans, existing public health messaging may be less likely to reach them successfully. Finally, we find that political outsiders experience more socio-economic hardships and are less integrated into society. Hence, our results underscore the importance of targeted efforts to reach this highly vulnerable population.

Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 114 (2) ◽  
pp. 392-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
MATTHEW H. GRAHAM ◽  
MILAN W. SVOLIK
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Support For Democracy ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
Democratic Stability ◽  
Democratic Principles ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Do So

Is support for democracy in the United States robust enough to deter undemocratic behavior by elected politicians? We develop a model of the public as a democratic check and evaluate it using two empirical strategies: an original, nationally representative candidate-choice experiment in which some politicians take positions that violate key democratic principles, and a natural experiment that occurred during Montana’s 2017 special election for the U.S. House. Our research design allows us to infer Americans’ willingness to trade-off democratic principles for other valid but potentially conflicting considerations such as political ideology, partisan loyalty, and policy preferences. We find the U.S. public’s viability as a democratic check to be strikingly limited: only a small fraction of Americans prioritize democratic principles in their electoral choices, and their tendency to do so is decreasing in several measures of polarization, including the strength of partisanship, policy extremism, and candidate platform divergence. Our findings echo classic arguments about the importance of political moderation and cross-cutting cleavages for democratic stability and highlight the dangers that polarization represents for democracy.

Myths as Barriers to Health Care Reform in the United States

2003 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. Geyman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Health Care System ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Free Market ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Incremental Change ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Care System

The U.S. health care system is deteriorating in terms of decreasing access, increased costs, unacceptable quality, and poor system performance compared with health care systems in many other industrialized Western countries. Reform efforts to establish universal insurance coverage have been defeated on five occasions over the last century, largely through successful opposition by pro-market stakeholders in the status quo. Reform attempts have repeatedly been thwarted by myths perpetuated by stakeholders without regard for the public interest. Six myths are identified here and defused by evidence: (1) “Everyone gets care anyhow;” (2) “We don't ration care in the United States”; (3) “The free market can resolve our problems in health care”; (4) “The U.S. health care system is basically healthy, so incremental change will address its problems;” (5) “The United States has the best health care system in the world”; and (6) “National health insurance is so unfeasible for political reasons that it should not be given serious consideration as a policy alternative.” Incremental changes of the existing health care system have failed to resolve its underlying problems. Pressure is building again for system reform, which may become more feasible if a national debate can be focused on the public interest without distortion by myths and disinformation fueled by defending stakeholders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document