Objective: The socioeconomic distribution of modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) is an important aspect of public health research. Understanding how these risk factors vary between different socioeconomic strata is crucial for the development of targeted interventions and policies to reduce the burden of CVD. The aim of the study is to determine the relationship between socioeconomic factors and variable factors for CVD. Design and method: The cross-sectional survey included 1,800 participants (random sample of general adult population in Croatia included in the Epidemiology of Hypertension in Croatia -2 project). Socioeconomic status and lifestyle data (physical activity, smoking, alcohol, black coffee) were collected using a structured questionnaire. Blood pressure was measured using an oscilometric device and the data collected was analysed using appropriate statistical methods. Results: In the whole group there were 25% smokers and 25% ex-smokers. Only 34.5% reported that they practice physical activity at least twice a week with a very low (51.7%) or moderate intensity (48.3%). A correlation was found between alcohol consumption and average monthly personal income (r=0.24, p<0.05), educational level (r=0.18, p<0.05), and type of work (r=-0.10 p<0.05). Black coffee consumption is complex and depends on individual preferences, cultural practices and other factors not necessarily related to socioeconomic status, but a relationship was found between black coffee consumption and income (p<0.05). and marital status (r=-0.20 p<0.05). The results show that the type of work has a significant influence on the amount and type of physical activity (p<0.05.). Conclusions: Understanding links between socioeconomic status and modifiable lifestyle risk factors is crucial for the development of targeted public health interventions. Eliminating inequalities in access to resources and opportunities can contribute to more equitable cardiovascular health outcomes between different socioeconomic groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bilobrk et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: