The Role of Conventional Risk Factors in Explaining Social Inequalities in Coronary Heart Disease

Archana Singh‐Manoux · Hermann Nabi · Martin J. Shipley · Alice Guéguen · Sèverine Sabia · Aline Dugravot +2 more

50 citations0/0 files storedEpidemiology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Health disparities and outcomes Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Various methodologic approaches have been used to estimate the role of risk factors in explaining the social gradient in coronary heart disease (CHD). Our objective was to examine whether there is a discrepancy in results obtained using the relative and absolute approaches. METHODS: Data are from the Whitehall II prospective cohort study on 5363 men who were 40- to 62-year-old at the start of the 11-year follow-up period. RESULTS: One or more of the 4 conventional risk factors examined (smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes) were present for 77% of individuals in the low socioeconomic group compared with 68% in the high socioeconomic group. The relative risk for incident CHD in the low socioeconomic group was 1.66 (95% confidence interval = 1.20 to 2.29) compared with the high group. Standardizing the distribution of risk factors in the low and high socioeconomic group to the overall study sample reduced relative risk by 16% and absolute risk by 14%. We also computed the population attributable risk (PAR) to indicate the reduction in CHD if the risk factor were completely removed from the population. The PAR associated with having at least one risk factor was 41% (95% confidence interval = 33% to 57%) in the high and 58% (13% to 91%) in the low socioeconomic group. CONCLUSIONS: In situations where the goal is to remove social differences in the distribution of risk factors, conventional risk factors explain a similar proportion of the social gradient in CHD, whether using the relative or absolute approaches to change in risk. This is not comparable to population attributable risk calculations, in which the goal is to completely remove the risk factors from the population. Failure to recognize that these methods address different questions seems to be the reason for discrepancies in previous results.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 50 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Health inequalities among British civil servants: the Whitehall II study 1993Socioeconomic factors and cardiovascular disease: a review of the literature.1984INEQUALITIES IN DEATH—SPECIFIC EXPLANATIONS OF A GENERAL PATTERN?1981Social class and coronary heart disease.2006Explaining the social gradient in coronary heart disease: comparing relative and absolute risk approaches 2006Association of Socioeconomic Status With Functional Capacity, Heart Rate Recovery, and All-Cause Mortality

Cited by

2023Cumulative social disadvantage and cardiovascular disease burden and mortality 2012Socioeconomic Inequalities in the Morbidity and Mortality of Acute Coronary Events in Finland: 1988 to 2002 2017Unequal Exposure or Unequal Vulnerability? Contributions of Neighborhood Conditions and Cardiovascular Risk Factors to Socioeconomic Inequality in Incident Cardiovascular Disease in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis 2010Intelligence, education, and mortality 2012Neighbourhood socioeconomic inequalities in incidence of acute myocardial infarction: a cohort study quantifying age- and gender-specific differences in relative and absolute terms

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.