Osteoporosis International

, Volume 17, Issue 10, pp 1562–1568 | Cite as

The role of socioeconomic status on hip fracture

Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

The impact of socioeconomic status—income and acculturation—on hip fracture is not well understood. We studied 116,919 fractures among 8,144,469 people in California. Greater income and English fluency predict lower fracture incidence. Lower income and immigrant populations are at increased risk for hip fracture and require intervention. Race/ethnicity is a major determinant of hip fracture risk. Although socioeconomic status (e.g., income and acculturation) is often associated with race/ethnicity, its impact on hip fracture incidence is less well understood.

Methods

We carried out a retrospective, population-based, study of persons with hip fractures in California, 1996 to 2000, compared to census estimates by zip code. We performed Poisson regression analyses to calculate hip fracture incident rate ratios for gender, age, race/ethnicity, income, language (percent non-English speakers)—a proxy for acculturation—and living in rural areas.

Results

During the 5-year period, 116,919 fractures occurred among 8,144,469 persons (2.87 fractures/1,000 persons per year). Higher income predicted lower hip fracture incidence. Persons in the highest decile of estimated income had an incident rate ratio (IRR) of 0.79 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.82) compared with those in the lowest decile. Greater IRR of hip fracture was predicted for persons living in areas with a greater percent of non-English speakers (IRR 1.004, 95% CI 1.003 to 1.005).

Conclusions

Low income and language fluency are predictors of greater hip fracture incidence. Although much attention is given to the aging of the “baby boomers”, low income and immigrant populations are at increased risk for hip fracture and require intervention.

Keywords

Aging Hip fracture Income Osteoporosis Population studies 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported through an unrestricted grant from the Merck Research Foundation. Dr. Zingmond is funded by a Mentored Clinical Scientist Award (NIA K08 AG023024-01A1).

References

  1. 1.
    Melton LJ 3rd (2003) Adverse outcomes of osteoporotic fractures in the general population. J Bone Miner Res 18:1139–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper C, Atkinson EJ, Jacobsen SJ, O’Fallon WM, Melton LJ 3rd (1993) Population-based study of survival after osteoporotic fractures. Am J Epidemiol 137:1001–1005PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Browner WS, Pressman AR, Nevitt MC, Cummings SR (1996) Mortality following fractures in older women. The study of osteoporotic fractures. Arch Intern Med 156:1521–1525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Braithwaite RS, Col NF, Wong JB (2003) Estimating hip fracture morbidity, mortality and costs. J Am Geriatr Soc 51:364–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cummings SR, Melton LJ (2002) Epidemiology and outcomes of osteoporotic fractures. Lancet 359:1761–1767PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bacon WE, Hadden WC (2000) Occurrence of hip fractures and socioeconomic position. J Aging Health 12:193–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farahmand BY, Persson PG, Michaelsson K, Baron JA, Parker MG, Ljunghall S (2000) Socioeconomic status, marital status and hip fracture risk: a population-based case–control study. Osteoporos Int 11:803–808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elffors I, Allander E, Kanis JA, Gullberg B, Johnell O, Dequeker J, Dilsen G, Gennari C, Lopes Vaz AA, Lyritis G et al (1994) The variable incidence of hip fracture in southern Europe: the MEDOS study. Osteoporos Int 4:253–263PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Marín G, Gamba RJ (1996) A new measurement of acculturation for Hispanics: the bidimensional acculturation scale for Hispanics (BAS). Hispanic J Behav Sci 18:297–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marín G (1992) Issues in the measurement of acculturation among Hispanics. In: Geisinger KF (ed) Psychological testing of Hispanics APA science volumes. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA, pp 235–251, URL http://www.apa.org/books CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Arcia E, Skinner M, Bailey D, Correa V (2001) Models of acculturation and health behaviors among Latino immigrants to the US. Soc Sci Med 53:41–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stephenson M (2000) Development and validation of the Stephenson Multigroup Acculturation Scale (SMAS). Psychol Assess 12:77–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J (1994) Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 47:1245–1251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    US census (2004) Summary file 3-2000 census of population and housing—technical documentation. In: Commerce USDo (ed) US Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    US census (2004) ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA): frequently asked questions. In: US censusGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cummings SR, Nevitt, MC, Browner WS, Stone K, Fox KM, Ensrud KE, Cauley J, Black D, Vogt TM, The Study of Osteoporotic Fractures Research (1995) Risk factors for hip fracture in white women. N Engl J Med 332:767–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wang MC, Dixon LB (2006) Socioeconomic influences on bone health in postmenopausal women: findings from NHANES III, 1988–1994. Osteoporos Int 17:91–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Elliot JR, Gilchrist NL, Wells JE (1996) The effect of socioeconomic status on bone density in a male Caucasian population. Bone 18:371–373PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    del Rio Barquero L, Romera Baures M, Pavia Segura J, Setoain Quinquer J, Serra Majem L, Garces Ruiz P, Lafuente Navarro C, Domenech Torne FM (1992) Bone mineral density in two different socio-economic population groups. Bone Miner 18:159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pearson D, Taylor R, Masud T (2004) The relationship between social deprivation, osteoporosis, and falls. Osteoporos Int 15:132–138PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Crespo CJ, Smit E, Andersen RE, Carter-Pokras O, Ainsworth BE (2000) Race/ethnicity, social class and their relation to physical inactivity during leisure time: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. Am J Prev Med 18:46–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brennan RM, Wactawski-Wende J, Crespo CJ, Dmochowski J (2004) Factors associated with treatment initiation after osteoporosis screening. Am J Epidemiol 160:475–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Finley C, Gregg EW, Solomon LJ, Gay E (2001) Disparities in hormone replacement therapy use by socioeconomic status in a primary care population. J Community Health 26:39–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chevalley T, Herrmann FR, Delmi M, Stern R, Hoffmeyer P, Rapin CH, Rizzoli R (2002) Evaluation of the age-adjusted incidence of hip fractures between urban and rural areas: the difference is not related to the prevalence of institutions for the elderly. Osteoporos Int 13:113–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mannius S, Mellstrom D, Oden A, Rundgren A, Zetterberg C (1987) Incidence of hip fracture in western Sweden 1974–1982. Comparison of rural and urban populations. Acta Orthop Scand 58:38–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sanders KM, Nicholson GC, Ugoni AM, Seeman E, Pasco JA, Kotowicz MA (2002) Fracture rates lower in rural than urban communities: the Geelong osteoporosis study. J Epidemiol Community Health 56:466–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sernbo I, Johnell O, Andersson T (1988) Differences in the incidence of hip fracture. Comparison of an urban and a rural population in southern Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 59:382–385PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schiller JS, Adams PF, Nelson ZC (2005) Summary health statistics for the US population: National Health Interview Survey, 2003. Vital Health Stat 10:1–104Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ford ME, Kelly PA (2005) Conceptualizing and categorizing race and ethnicity in health services research. Health Serv Res 40:1658–1675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Acheson SD (1998) Independent inquiry into inequalities in health. In: Stationary OfficeGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    US Department of Health and Human Services (2004) Bone health and osteoporosis: a report of the Surgeon General. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Office of the Surgeon General, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    US Department of Health and Human Services (2000) Objective 15–28. Reduce hip fractures among older adults. In: Healthy people 2010, 2nd edn. With understanding and improving health and objectives for improving health, 2 vols. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Steenland K, Hu S, Walker J (2004) All-cause and cause-specific mortality by socioeconomic status among employed persons in 27 US states, 1984–1997. Am J Public Health 94:1037–1042PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. S. Zingmond
    • 1
  • N. F. Soohoo
    • 2
  • S. L. Silverman
    • 3
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of MedicineThe David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.UCLA Department of Orthopedic SurgeryThe David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLALos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Division of Rheumatology, Department of MedicineThe David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations