Poor self-rated health independently predicted coronary heart disease, with adjusted relative risks up to 18.6 for 'miserable' versus 'extremely good' health over 16 years (p=0.02).
Cohort (n=1,052)
No
Does self-rated health predict the incidence of fatal and non-fatal coronary heart disease in a general population cohort?
Self-rated health is a strong, independent predictor of incident coronary heart disease, with 'miserable' self-rated health associated with an 18.6-fold increased risk compared to 'extremely good' health.
Effect estimate: RR 18.6
p-value: p=0.02
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To analyse the association between self rated health and the incidence of fatal and non-fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) in a Danish cohort followed up over 16 years. DESIGN: This was a prospective epidemiological follow up study. SETTING: A cohort from the County of Copenhagen, Denmark. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 1052 men and women born in 1936. During the 16 years' follow up 50 cases of CHD were registered in either the Danish register of deaths or the register of hospital admissions. MAIN RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed the following relative risks of CHD in the four self rated health groups: 'extremely good': 1.0, 'good': 4.0, 'poor': 5.8, 'miserable': 12.1 (p = 0.02). After control for the conventional CHD risk factors and a substantial number of other potential confounders the relative risks were: 1.0, 4.2, 6.5, and 18.6 (p = 0.02) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Self rated health was an independent predictor of CHD in the present cohort. If confirmed, the association between self rated health and CHD may lead to new insight into psychosocial processes leading to this disease.
Möller et al. (Thu,) conducted a cohort in Coronary heart disease (n=1,052). Self-rated health vs. Extremely good self-rated health was evaluated on Incidence of fatal and non-fatal coronary heart disease (CHD) (RR 18.6, p=0.02). Poor self-rated health independently predicted coronary heart disease, with adjusted relative risks up to 18.6 for 'miserable' versus 'extremely good' health over 16 years (p=0.02).