Key result
Low household income is linked to ~40% higher odds of prevalent major CVD.
Why the study?
Cardiovascular disease remains socially patterned across Europe, but single-axis analyses can obscure how social positions combine to shape intersectional inequalities in self-reported major CVD.
Cross-Sectional (n=218,539)
Yes
Major cardiovascular disease prevalence across Europe shows substantial social gradients driven primarily by the cumulative, additive effects of male gender, low income, age, and clinical/behavioural risk factors rather than unique interaction effects at specific social intersections.
Low income and male gender stratify major CVD odds across Europe; supports targeted prevention but leaves open causal mechanisms and further intersectional effects.
Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains socially patterned across Europe, but single-axis analyses can obscure how social positions combine. We used Multilevel Analysis of Individual Heterogeneity and Discriminatory Accuracy (MAIHDA) to examine intersectional inequalities in self-reported major CVD. Methods We analysed cross-sectional European Health Interview Survey wave 3 data from 218 539 adults aged 40 years or older in 30 European countries. Major CVD comprised self-reported myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease or angina, or stroke, including chronic consequences. Twenty-four strata combined gender, household income, country of birth, and area of residence. Multilevel logistic models estimated predicted prevalence and assessed between-stratum heterogeneity and discriminatory accuracy before and after adjustment for age, education, obesity, smoking, and sedentary lifestyle. Results Weighted major CVD prevalence was 7.5%. Fully adjusted predicted prevalence ranged from 4.0% to 12.9% across intersectional strata, with the highest prevalence among low-income men and the lowest among medium/high-income women. In the fully adjusted model, women had lower odds of major CVD than men (odds ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.62–0.71), whereas low-income participants had higher odds than those with medium/high income (1.40, 1.31–1.49). Residual between-stratum heterogeneity was very small (variance partition coefficient 0.07%; proportional change in variance 98.5%), and the fully adjusted model had an area under the curve of 0.728. Conclusions Major CVD was clearly socially patterned, but inequalities reflected mainly the accumulation of measured disadvantages rather than large effects unique to particular intersections. These findings support population-wide cardiovascular prevention combined with proportionately greater support for socially disadvantaged groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva¹ et al. (2026) conducted a cross-sectional in Major cardiovascular disease (n=218,539). Low household income (within 24 intersectional strata combining gender, income, country of birth, and residence) vs. Medium/high household income was evaluated on Self-reported prevalent major cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease or angina pectoris, or stroke, including chronic consequences) (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.31-1.49, p=<0.001). Low household income increased major CVD odds (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.31-1.49) and female gender decreased them (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.62-0.71), with minimal residual intersectional heterogeneity (VPC 0.07%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: