Key result
Adding socioeconomic factors (employment status and educational level) to standard history-taking criteria significantly improved the prediction of high cardiovascular disease risk, increasing the area under the curve from 0.563 to 0.682 in women and from 0.610 to 0.664 in men.
Why the study?
Guidelines indicate psychosocial factors increase CVD risk, but their use as eligibility criteria for screening is not yet recommended.
Does the addition of psychosocial factors to standard history-taking criteria improve the prediction of high CVD risk in a multi-ethnic population without prior CVD?
Cross-Sectional (n=10,226)
No
Does the addition of psychosocial factors to standard history-taking criteria improve the prediction of high CVD risk in a multi-ethnic population without prior CVD?
p-value: p=<0.001
Socioeconomic factors such as employment status and educational level improve the detection of individuals at high CVD risk beyond standard history-taking criteria.
May support inclusion in risk models; hypothesis-generating for prospective outcome studies in multi-ethnic groups.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention strategies include identifying and managing high risk individuals. Identification primarily occurs through screening or case finding. Guidelines indicate that psychosocial factors increase CVD risk, but their use for screening is not yet recommended. We studied whether psychosocial factors may serve as additional eligibility criteria in a multi-ethnic population without prior CVD. We performed a cross-sectional analysis using baseline data of 10,226 participants of Dutch, South-Asian Surinamese, African Surinamese, Ghanaian, Turkish and Moroccan origin aged 40-70 years, living in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Using logistic regressions and Akaike Information Criteria, we analyzed whether psychosocial factors (educational level, employment status, occupational level, financial stress, primary earner status, mental health, stress, depression, and social isolation) improved prediction of high CVD risk (SCORE-estimated fatal and non-fatal CVD risk ≥5%) beyond eligibility criteria from history taking (smoking, obesity, family history of CVD). Next, we compared the additional predictive value of psychosocial eligibility criteria in women and men across ethnic groups, using the area under the curve (AUC). Of our sample, 32.7% had a high CVD risk. Only socioeconomic eligibility criteria (employment status and educational level) improved high CVD risk prediction (p < .001 for likelihood-ratio tests). These increased AUCs in women (from 0.563 to 0.682) and men (from 0.610 to 0.664), particularly in Dutch, South-Asian Surinamese, African Surinamese and Moroccan women, and Dutch and Moroccan men. Concluding, socioeconomic eligibility criteria may be considered as additional eligibility criteria for CVD risk screening, as they improve detection of women and men at high CVD risk.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hummel et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in High cardiovascular disease risk (n=10,226). Socioeconomic factors (employment status and educational level) vs. Standard history-taking criteria alone (smoking, obesity, family history of CVD) was evaluated on Prediction of high CVD risk (SCORE-estimated fatal and non-fatal CVD risk ≥ 5%) (p=<0.001). Adding socioeconomic factors (employment status and educational level) to standard history-taking criteria significantly improved the prediction of high cardiovascular disease risk, increasing the area under the curve from 0.563 to 0.682 in women and from 0.610 to 0.664 in men.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: