Background Hypertension is the most important cardiovascular risk factor in India, and representative studies of middle-aged and older Indian adults have been lacking. Our objectives were to estimate the proportions of hypertensive adults who had been diagnosed, took antihypertensive medication, and achieved control in the middle-aged and older Indian population and to investigate the association between access to healthcare and hypertension management. Methods and findings We designed a nationally representative cohort study of the middle-aged and older Indian population, the Longitudinal Aging Study in India (LASI), and analyzed data from the 2017–2019 baseline wave (N = 72,262) and the 2010 pilot wave (N = 1,683). Hypertension was defined as self-reported physician diagnosis or elevated blood pressure (BP) on measurement, defined as systolic BP ≥ 140 mm Hg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mm Hg. Among hypertensive individuals, awareness, treatment, and control were defined based on self-reports of having been diagnosed, taking antihypertensive medication, and not having elevated BP, respectively. The estimated prevalence of hypertension for the Indian population aged 45 years and older was 45.9% (95% CI 45.4%–46.5%). Among hypertensive individuals, 55.7% (95% CI 54.9%–56.5%) had been diagnosed, 38.9% (95% CI 38.1%–39.6%) took antihypertensive medication, and 31.7% (95% CI 31.0%–32.4%) achieved BP control. In multivariable logistic regression models, access to public healthcare was a key predictor of hypertension treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 1.35, 95% CI 1.14–1.60, p = 0.001), especially in the most economically disadvantaged group (OR of the interaction for middle economic status = 0.76, 95% CI 0.61–0.94, p = 0.013; OR of the interaction for high economic status = 0.84, 95% CI 0.68–1.05, p = 0.124). Having health insurance was not associated with improved hypertension awareness among those with low economic status (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.86–1.07, p = 0.437) and those with middle economic status (OR of the interaction = 1.15, 95% CI 1.00–1.33, p = 0.051), but it was among those with high economic status (OR of the interaction = 1.28, 95% CI 1.10–1.48, p = 0.001). Comparing hypertension awareness, treatment, and control rates in the 4 pilot states, we found statistically significant (p < 0.001) improvement in hypertension management from 2010 to 2017–2019. The limitations of this study include the pilot sample being relatively small and that it recruited from only 4 states. Conclusions Although considerable variations in hypertension diagnosis, treatment, and control exist across different sociodemographic groups and geographic areas, reducing uncontrolled hypertension remains a public health priority in India. Access to healthcare is closely tied to both hypertension diagnosis and treatment.

BackgroundInternational comparisons of disease prevalence have been useful in understanding what proportion of disease might be preventable and in informing potential policy interventions in different cultural and economic contexts. Using newly available, harmonized data from 20 countries, we compare disability and morbidity of older adults between the ages of 55 and 74.MethodsThe Gateway to Global Aging Data, a data and information portal, provides access to easy-to-use individual-level longitudinal data from 10 surveys covering over 30 countries. Exploiting harmonized measures available from the Gateway, we descriptively examine how disability and morbidity differ across countries.ResultsSignificant cross-country differences are observed for several health indicators. Comparing countries with the highest and lowest prevalence rates, we observe that hypertension rates vary twofold and stroke rates vary threefold, while disability and arthritis rates vary more than fivefold. Among women, higher gross domestic product and life expectancy are related to lower diabetes, heart disease, and better functioning. Among men, national indicators of economic conditions are not significantly associated with reported disease prevalence.ConclusionsWe document substantial heterogeneity in disability and morbidity across countries, separately for men and women and after controlling for population age composition and education. Rich data from various surveys across the world offers remarkable opportunities for cross-country analyses, calling for further investigation of what drives observed differences. The Gateway to Global Aging Data provides easy-to-use harmonized data files and tools to facilitate this type of research.

No abstract

Objectives The Gateway to Global Aging Data (Gateway; g2aging.org) is a data and information platform developed to facilitate cross-country analyses on aging, especially those using the international family of Health and Retirement studies. We provide a brief introduction to the Gateway to Global Aging Data, discussing its potential for cross-national comparisons of family, social environment, and healthy aging. Methods We summarize the survey metadata, study characteristics, and harmonized data available from the Gateway, describing the population represented in each study. We portray cohort characteristics and key measures of health and social environment from 37 countries in North America, Europe, and Asia using harmonized data. Results Significant cross-country heterogeneity was observed in many measures of family, social environment, and healthy aging indicators. For example, there was a three-fold difference in co-residence with children, ranging from 14% in Sweden to over 46% in Spain and Korea in 2014. From 2002-2014, the difference between informal care receipt in individuals of low and high wealth decreased by 6% in the US and remained unchanged in England. The percentage of individuals aged 50-59 living alone in 2012 varied fifteen-fold, from a low of 2% in China to a high of 30% in Mexico. Discussion By partnering with nationally representative studies around the globe, the Gateway to Global Aging Data facilitates comparative research on aging through the provision of easy-to-use harmonized data files and other valuable tools.

Objectives Family is largely overlooked in research on factors associated with place of death among older adults. We determine if family caregiving at the end of life is associated with place of death in the United States and Europe. Method We use the Harmonized End of Life data sets developed by the Gateway to Global Aging Data for the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE) and the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). We conducted multinomial logistic regression on 7,113 decedents from 18 European countries and 3,031 decedents from the United States to determine if family caregiving, defined based on assistance with activities of daily living, was associated with death at home versus at a hospital or nursing home. Results Family caregiving was associated with reduced odds of dying in a hospital and nursing home, relative to dying at home in both the United States and Europe. Care from a spouse/partner or child/grandchild was both more common and more strongly associated with place of death than care from other relatives. Associations between family caregiving and place of death were generally consistent across European welfare regimes. Discussion This cross-national examination of family caregiving indicates that family-based support is universally important in determining where older adults die. In both the United States and in Europe, most care provided during a long-term illness or disability is provided by family caregivers, and it is clear families exert tremendous influence on place of death.