Back to Authors

Sauver, Jennifer St.

A5128105880 | I2802423016

Mayo Clinic

WinnMed

Citations 2

Differential associations of individual- and neighborhood-level socioeconomic status with mortality in dementia: Findings from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging

Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease | September 3, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1177/13872877261482043 | PMID 42690834

Background Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias are leading causes of death worldwide. While socioeconomic status (SES) is a critical determinant, its impact on mortality after diagnosis remains understudied. Objective To investigate the roles of neighborhood-level and individual-level SES in predicting mortality risk among older adults with incident dementia. Methods We analyzed data from 924 participants with incident dementia from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (N = 6909), a cohort with clinical follow-up visits every 15 months. We assessed mortality risk using Cox's time-varying survival regression, adjusting for time-fixed and time-varying covariates. Primary predictors were neighborhood-level SES (Area Deprivation Index [ADI]) and individual-level SES (housing-based SES index [HOUSES], education, and occupation). We also applied a random survival forest model to assess the predictive contribution of SES indicators and identify influential predictors. Results 857 participants (92.7%) died, with a median time from dementia diagnosis to death of 29 months (IQR: 12–54). Lower SES measured by HOUSES was associated with increased mortality risk (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.07–1.52). Conversely, ADI, education, and occupation were not associated with mortality. Male sex, older age, congestive heart failure and diabetes were associated with higher mortality risk. In predictive analysis, HOUSES ranked among the top 10 contributors to mortality risk. Conclusions Among older adults with dementia, lower HOUSES was associated with higher mortality risk beyond neighborhood-level deprivation, education, and occupation. Integrating this housing-based individual-level SES measure into dementia care planning may help identify patients with greater socioeconomic vulnerability and inform mortality risk stratification.
Comparison of the Association of Area‐Based Deprivation Indices With Hypertension and Diabetes Control Outcomes

Journal of the American Heart Association | March 4, 2026 | Volume: 15 | Issue: 6 | Pages: No page available

10.1161/jaha.125.045324 | PMID 41778586

Background Area‐based deprivation indices have been linked to hypertension and diabetes outcomes, but limited information exists about their relative performance. We compared 2 area‐based deprivation measures (Area Deprivation Index and Yost Index) as risk factors for hypertension and diabetes control. Methods This cohort study identified adults with hypertension or diabetes in a 19‐county region of Southeast Minnesota covered by the Rochester Epidemiology Project. The deprivation indices were operationalized as quintiles for state and national ranks. We assessed agreement using the weighted kappa statistic. We used modified Poisson regression to evaluate associations of the deprivation indices with blood pressure or diabetes control in 2022. We compared relative model fit using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results We identified 67 386 individuals with hypertension and 30 435 with diabetes. There was moderate to substantial agreement between indices, but the agreement was higher for the state rank (weighted kappa 0.68 for both cohorts) than the national rank (0.54 for both). Although the indices were not associated with hypertension control, greater deprivation was associated with worse diabetes control for the Yost Index (relative risk [RR], 1.21 [95% CI, 1.07–1.38]) and Area Deprivation Index (RR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.12–1.73]) national ranks. The full‐model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was similar across indices but differed across cohorts with worse fit for hypertension (0.53 for both) than diabetes (0.63 for both). Conclusions Two common area‐based deprivation indices had similar strength of association with diabetes control, suggesting that either index would be appropriate for researching and developing interventions for diabetes control.