The role of spoken language in cardiovascular health inequalities: a cross-sectional study of people with non-English language preference

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic and ethnic factors are established determinants of cardiovascular health inequalities. The role of low proficiency in the majority language as a mediator of these inequalities is uncertain. AIM: This study aimed to investigate the association between non-English language preference and cardiovascular health inequalities in a community in London. DESIGN & SETTING: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of anonymised patient-level data collected from general practices in Lambeth, south London. METHOD: Cardiovascular disease prevalence, monitoring, and risk-identification data were compared between non-English and English language groups using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the total number of patients registered at the 49 participating practices, 302 404 (83%) patients were aged ≥18 years. Preferred language was recorded by 69.4%: English 53.6%, Portuguese 3.2%, Spanish 2.6%, French 1.6%, Polish 1.4%, Somali 0.5%, and others 7.1%; 30.6% had no record of language preference. The non-English language preference group had a greater likelihood of coronary heart disease ([CHD], odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.03 to 1.34); diabetes mellitus ([DM], OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.23 to 1.43); obesity (OR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.13); and smoking (OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.14 to 1.21), but no difference in the prevalence of hypertension or stroke. Cardiovascular monitoring was not less intense in this group. Portuguese-speakers (the largest non-English language preference group) had a greater likelihood of hypertension (OR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.30 to 1.57); DM (OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.50 to 2.02); stroke (OR = 1.40, 95% CI = 1.08 to 1.81); obesity (OR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.36 to 1.73); and smoking (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.25). CONCLUSION: The non-English language preference group was associated with a greater risk of some aspects of cardiovascular disease than the English language preference group, probably reflecting shared cultural and behavioural risk. Non-English language preference was not associated with lower rates of cardiovascular monitoring, providing some evidence of equitable primary care access in this group.