PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 6, 2026Circulation0 citations

Abstract TU276: Association Between Health Care Access and Cardiovascular Health Risk Among Reproductive-Aged Women in the SAFE HEART Study

View Full Paper
KDKwabena DankwaJohns Hopkins UniversityFMFaith MetlockJohns Hopkins UniversityKOKwabena Odei-KumiJohns Hopkins University

Key Points

  • This research aims to explore the relationship between healthcare access and cardiovascular health risk among reproductive-aged women.
  • Cross-sectional sample of reproductive-aged women aged 18-50
  • Analyzed indicators of healthcare access: insurance status, PCP status, transportation barriers
  • LE8 metrics assessed through self-reported data
  • Statistical analysis using descriptive statistics and linear regression
  • Mean CVH risk score among participants was 2.26
  • No significant association found between healthcare access indicators and CVH risk
  • Participants without insurance showed no difference in CVH score compared to those with insurance
  • Transportation barriers and PCP availability also showed no significant impact on CVH risk

Abstract

Background: Limited access to healthcare can influence cardiovascular health behaviors and outcomes. Few studies have examined this relationship, especially among women of reproductive age who often face unique barriers to care. We examined how indicators of access to care relate to overall CVH risk, defined by Life’s Essential 8 (LE8), among women in the SAFE HEART Study. Methods: We analyzed a cross-sectional sample of women aged 18–50 years. LE8 metrics (diet, physical activity, smoking, sleep health, body mass index, blood lipids, blood glucose, and blood pressure) were self-reported and scored as 0 vs 1 (optimal vs suboptimal levels as per AHA’s LE8 recommendations). Each participant received a composite CVH risk score (0-8), representing the number of suboptimal LE8 metrics. Access-to-care indicators included insurance status, PCP status, and self-reported transportation barriers (yes vs no for each indicator). Covariates included age, race, education, income, and employment status. Descriptive statistics and fully adjusted linear regression were used to assess associations between healthcare access and CVH risk. Results: Among N =178 women, the mean age was 32.4 years (SD = 8.0) and the mean CVH risk score was 2.26 + 0.88. Participants without insurance (n = 48) had a mean score of 2.29 + 0.80 versus 2.25 + 0.92 among those with insurance (n = 130; p = 0.79). Those without a PCP (n = 76) had a mean score of 2.25 + 0.84 versus 2.27 + 0.92 for those with a PCP (n = 102; p = 0.85). Participants reporting transportation barriers (n = 27) had a mean score of 2.22 + 0.93, compared with 2.27 + 0.88 among those without barriers (n = 151; p = 0.80). In fully adjusted linear regression, none of the healthcare access indicators were significantly associated with CVH risk: insurance (β = 0.22, p = 0.30), PCP (β = 0.09, p = 0.59), and transportation barrier (β = -0.03, p = 0.88). Conclusion: In this sample of reproductive-aged women, insurance, primary care provider, and transportation barriers were not independently associated with cardiovascular risk as measured by LE8 metrics. Beyond healthcare access, other social and behavioral determinants may play a larger role in cardiovascular health risk among reproductive-aged women.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Dankwa et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69faa1eb04f884e66b532a84https://doi.org/10.1161/cir.153.suppl_1.tu276
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Sex differences in the association between cumulative social risk and life’s essential 8 cardiovascular health scores in U.S. adults2026 · 3 citations
  2. 2Gender differences in the association between Life's essential 8 and cardiovascular disease: a U.S.-based cross-sectional analysis2025 · 3 citations
  3. 3Abstract TAC132: Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Life’s Essential 8 Outcomes Among Women of Reproductive Age in Baltimore and Washington D.C.2025
  4. 4Associations of psychosocial factors with cardiovascular health in aging: insights from the Inlife-Aging Project2026
  5. 5Abstract 65: Association Between Life’s Essential 8 and Incident Cardiovascular Disease in Women With a History of Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes2024 · 1 citations