Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35672032›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022

Political environment and mortality rates in the United States, 2001-19: population based cross sectional analysis.

Haider J Warraich, Pankaj Kumar, Khurram Nasir, Karen E Joynt Maddox, Rishi K Wadhera

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Threats to Democracy and the Right to Health.American journal of public health · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Geographic access to pediatric neurosurgeons in the USA: an analysis of sociodemographic factors.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Community-level age bias and older adult mortality.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Haider J WarraichDepartment of Medicine, Cardiology Section, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA hwarraich@partners.org.ORCID 0000-0001-9493-1372
Pankaj KumarDepartment of Medicine, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan.
Khurram NasirDivision of Cardiovascular Prevention and Wellness, Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Karen E Joynt MaddoxDepartment of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA.
Rishi K WadheraHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USDow University of Health Sciences · PKHouston Methodist · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess recent trends in age adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) in the United States based on county level presidential voting patterns.

designCross sectional study.

settingUSA, 2001-19.

participants99.8% of the US population.

main outcome measuresAAMR per 100 000 population and average annual percentage change (APC).

methodsThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database was linked to county level data on US presidential elections. County political environment was classified as either Democratic or Republican for the four years that followed a November presidential election. Additional sensitivity analyses analyzed AAMR trends for counties that voted only for one party throughout the study, and county level gubernatorial election results and state level AAMR trends. Joinpoint analysis was used to assess for an inflection point in APC trends.

resultsThe study period covered five presidential elections from 2000 to 2019. From 2001 to 2019, the AAMR per 100 000 population decreased by 22% in Democratic counties, from 850.3 to 664.0 (average APC -1.4%, 95% confidence interval -1.5% to -1.2%), but by only 11% in Republican counties, from 867.0 to 771.1 (average APC -0.7%, -0.9% to -0.5%). The gap in AAMR between Democratic and Republican counties therefore widened from 16.7 (95% confidence interval 16.6 to 16.8) to 107.1 (106.5 to 107.7). Statistically significant inflection points in APC occurred for Democratic counties between periods 2001-09 (APC -2.1%, -2.3% to -1.9%) and 2009-19 (APC -0.8%, -1.0% to -0.6%). For Republican counties between 2001 and 2008 the APC was -1.4% (-1.8% to -1.0%), slowing to near zero between 2008 and 2019 (APC -0.2%, -0.4% to 0.0%). Male and female residents of Democratic counties experienced both lower AAMR and twice the relative decrease in AAMR than did those in Republican counties. Black Americans experienced largely similar improvement in AAMR in both Democratic and Republican counties. However, the AAMR gap between white residents in Democratic versus Republican counties increased fourfold, from 24.7 (95% confidence interval 24.6 to 24.8) to 101.3 (101.0 to 101.6). Rural Republican counties experienced the highest AAMR and the least improvement. All trends were similar when comparing counties that did not switch political environment throughout the period and when gubernatorial election results were used. The greatest contributors to the widening AAMR gap between Republican and Democratic counties were heart disease (difference in AAMRs 27.6), cancer (17.3), and chronic lower respiratory tract diseases (8.3), followed by unintentional injuries (3.3) and suicide (3.0).

conclusionThe mortality gap in Republican voting counties compared with Democratic voting counties has grown over time, especially for white populations, and that gap began to widen after 2008.

Indexed as

Heart DiseasesRural PopulationBlack or African AmericanCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMalePoliticsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35672032
PMCPMC9171631
OpenAlexW4281628303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.