Cargando…

Equity in healthcare for coronary heart disease, Wales (UK) 2004–2010: A population-based electronic cohort study

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial falls in coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in the United Kingdom (UK), marked socioeconomic inequalities in CHD risk factors and CHD mortality persist. We investigated whether inequity in CHD healthcare in Wales (UK) could contribute to the observed social gradie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: King, William, Lacey, Arron, White, James, Farewell, Daniel, Dunstan, Frank, Fone, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5354260/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28301496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172618
_version_ 1782515283672432640
author King, William
Lacey, Arron
White, James
Farewell, Daniel
Dunstan, Frank
Fone, David
author_facet King, William
Lacey, Arron
White, James
Farewell, Daniel
Dunstan, Frank
Fone, David
author_sort King, William
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite substantial falls in coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in the United Kingdom (UK), marked socioeconomic inequalities in CHD risk factors and CHD mortality persist. We investigated whether inequity in CHD healthcare in Wales (UK) could contribute to the observed social gradient in CHD mortality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Linking data from primary and secondary care we constructed an electronic cohort of individuals (n = 1199342) with six year follow-up, 2004–2010. We identified indications for recommended CHD interventions, measured time to their delivery, and estimated risk of receiving the interventions for each of five ordered deprivation groups using a time-to-event approach with Cox regression frailty models. Interventions in primary and secondary prevention included risk-factor measurement, smoking management, statins and antihypertensive therapy, and in established CHD included medication and revascularization. For primary prevention, five of the 11 models favoured the more deprived and one favoured the less deprived. For medication in secondary prevention and established CHD, one of the 15 models favoured the more deprived and one the less deprived. In relation to revascularization, six of the 12 models favoured the less deprived and none favoured the more deprived–this evidence of inequity exemplified by a hazard ratio for revascularization in stable angina of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.92). The main study limitation is the possibility of under-ascertainment or misclassification of clinical indications and treatment from variability in coding. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care components of CHD healthcare were equitably delivered. Evidence of inequity was found for revascularization procedures, although this inequity is likely to have only a modest effect on social gradients in CHD mortality. Policymakers should focus on reducing inequalities in CHD risk factors, particularly smoking, as these, rather than inequity in healthcare, are likely to be key drivers of inequalities in CHD mortality.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5354260
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53542602017-04-06 Equity in healthcare for coronary heart disease, Wales (UK) 2004–2010: A population-based electronic cohort study King, William Lacey, Arron White, James Farewell, Daniel Dunstan, Frank Fone, David PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Despite substantial falls in coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in the United Kingdom (UK), marked socioeconomic inequalities in CHD risk factors and CHD mortality persist. We investigated whether inequity in CHD healthcare in Wales (UK) could contribute to the observed social gradient in CHD mortality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Linking data from primary and secondary care we constructed an electronic cohort of individuals (n = 1199342) with six year follow-up, 2004–2010. We identified indications for recommended CHD interventions, measured time to their delivery, and estimated risk of receiving the interventions for each of five ordered deprivation groups using a time-to-event approach with Cox regression frailty models. Interventions in primary and secondary prevention included risk-factor measurement, smoking management, statins and antihypertensive therapy, and in established CHD included medication and revascularization. For primary prevention, five of the 11 models favoured the more deprived and one favoured the less deprived. For medication in secondary prevention and established CHD, one of the 15 models favoured the more deprived and one the less deprived. In relation to revascularization, six of the 12 models favoured the less deprived and none favoured the more deprived–this evidence of inequity exemplified by a hazard ratio for revascularization in stable angina of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.92). The main study limitation is the possibility of under-ascertainment or misclassification of clinical indications and treatment from variability in coding. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care components of CHD healthcare were equitably delivered. Evidence of inequity was found for revascularization procedures, although this inequity is likely to have only a modest effect on social gradients in CHD mortality. Policymakers should focus on reducing inequalities in CHD risk factors, particularly smoking, as these, rather than inequity in healthcare, are likely to be key drivers of inequalities in CHD mortality. Public Library of Science 2017-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5354260/ /pubmed/28301496 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172618 Text en © 2017 King et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
King, William
Lacey, Arron
White, James
Farewell, Daniel
Dunstan, Frank
Fone, David
Equity in healthcare for coronary heart disease, Wales (UK) 2004–2010: A population-based electronic cohort study
title Equity in healthcare for coronary heart disease, Wales (UK) 2004–2010: A population-based electronic cohort study
title_full Equity in healthcare for coronary heart disease, Wales (UK) 2004–2010: A population-based electronic cohort study
title_fullStr Equity in healthcare for coronary heart disease, Wales (UK) 2004–2010: A population-based electronic cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Equity in healthcare for coronary heart disease, Wales (UK) 2004–2010: A population-based electronic cohort study
title_short Equity in healthcare for coronary heart disease, Wales (UK) 2004–2010: A population-based electronic cohort study
title_sort equity in healthcare for coronary heart disease, wales (uk) 2004–2010: a population-based electronic cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5354260/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28301496
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172618
work_keys_str_mv AT kingwilliam equityinhealthcareforcoronaryheartdiseasewalesuk20042010apopulationbasedelectroniccohortstudy
AT laceyarron equityinhealthcareforcoronaryheartdiseasewalesuk20042010apopulationbasedelectroniccohortstudy
AT whitejames equityinhealthcareforcoronaryheartdiseasewalesuk20042010apopulationbasedelectroniccohortstudy
AT farewelldaniel equityinhealthcareforcoronaryheartdiseasewalesuk20042010apopulationbasedelectroniccohortstudy
AT dunstanfrank equityinhealthcareforcoronaryheartdiseasewalesuk20042010apopulationbasedelectroniccohortstudy
AT fonedavid equityinhealthcareforcoronaryheartdiseasewalesuk20042010apopulationbasedelectroniccohortstudy