Key result
Low socioeconomic status linked to ~30% lower likelihood of receiving comprehensive secondary prevention after IHD.
Why the study?
Do socioeconomic factors affect the receipt of comprehensive secondary prevention in patients hospitalized with ischaemic heart disease?
Cohort (n=93,159)
Yes
Do socioeconomic factors affect the receipt of comprehensive secondary prevention in patients hospitalized with ischaemic heart disease?
Relative Risk: 0.7 (95% CI 0.67–0.73)
Substantial socioeconomic disparities exist in the uptake of comprehensive secondary prevention after ischemic heart disease, highlighting the need for equity-oriented strategies to improve engagement with care.
Socioeconomic disparities may limit secondary prevention access after ischemic heart disease; hypothesis-generating for equity interventions.
AIMS: Socioeconomic differences in secondary prevention following ischaemic heart disease (IHD) remain insufficiently understood, particularly during the transition from hospital to primary care. This study examined disparities in cardiac rehabilitation (CR), preventive medication, and general practice (GP) follow-up in a nationwide cohort. METHODS: This nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study included 93,159 individuals hospitalised with IHD between 2016 and 2022. Measures included CR uptake and adherence, redeemed antiplatelet and statin prescriptions, annual GP follow-up, and a count of three components as an indicator of comprehensive secondary prevention. Relative risks (RR) were estimated using modified Poisson regression, adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Within six months, 41.2% initiated CR, of whom 73.7% adhered. During follow-up, 86.1% and 77.0% redeemed antiplatelet and statin prescriptions, respectively, while 56.0% attended annual GP follow-up. Only 25.9% achieved all three components. The likelihood of receiving all three components was lower among individuals with short education (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.88-0.94), those living alone (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.75-0.79), individuals with low income (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.67-0.73), or unemployment (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.75-0.89). Socioeconomic differences were most pronounced for CR uptake. Notably, 7.6% of individuals received none of the recommended components, indicating a subgroup with low engagement in secondary prevention. CONCLUSION: Substantial socioeconomic differences persist in secondary prevention after IHD, reflecting inequalities in access to and engagement with care, despite a universal healthcare system. Addressing these gaps requires equity-oriented, cross-sectoral strategies at critical transition points in care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Svendsen et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Ischaemic heart disease (n=93,159). Low socioeconomic status (e.g., low income, short education, unemployment) vs. Higher socioeconomic status was evaluated on Receiving all three components of comprehensive secondary prevention (cardiac rehabilitation, preventive medication, general practice follow-up) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.67-0.73). Low socioeconomic status, such as low income (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.67-0.73), was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving comprehensive secondary prevention after ischaemic heart disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: