Why the study?
Classic risk factors account for approximately 80% of cardiovascular disease risk, while the influence of marital status as a potential contributor remains unclear.
Does being unmarried, divorced, or widowed increase the incidence of cardiovascular disease compared to being married?
Does being unmarried, divorced, or widowed increase the incidence of cardiovascular disease compared to being married?
Being divorced or widowed is associated with a 28% increased risk of incident cardiovascular disease compared to being married.
May consider marital disruption in residual CVD risk talks; leaves open causality and social-support trials.
Significant morbidity and death are connected to cardiovascular disease (CVD), with classic risk factors such as age, sex, smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes accounting for 80% of the risk. The other 20% of risk variables are poorly understood. The influence of marital status is one more element whose function is unclear. A comprehensive literature review was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and data from the included articles were extracted and analyzed. A meta-analysis was conducted using the findings of the 13 publications. In this study, we evaluated the incidence of CVD across different marital statuses by analyzing 13 cohort studies from 11 countries with 1,809,825 participants. Our results showed no significant differences in CVD incidence among married (HR 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.20) and unmarried individuals (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95-1.62). Divorced individuals had a 28% higher incidence (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14-1.44), and widowed individuals showed a 28% increase (HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.11-1.48). The results show no discernible difference in the incidence of CVD between married and single people. However, divorced and widowed people have a noticeably increased risk of CVD incidence. The high heterogeneity of the research highlights the complexity of the link. These results emphasize how crucial it is to take marital status into account when evaluating CVD risk and developing preventative measures.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Moradi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: