Richard Mitchell1, Gerry Fowkes, David Blane, Mel Bartley. 1. Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh EH8 9AG, UK. Richard.Mitchell@ed.ac.uk
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare prevalence of socioeconomic, behavioural, and physiological ischaemic heart disease (IHD) risk factors in Scotland with a comparable nation (England) and (2) find out if their distribution explains Scotland's comparatively higher IHD rate (1.62 (1.30, 2.02)). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross sectional, individual level observational study with data on socioeconomic, behavioural, and physiological characteristics, 6064 respondents from Scotland and England, (2362 and 3702 respectively), aged 45-74 and with data on all required items. MAIN RESULTS: There were significant and meaningful differences between the Scottish and English in the prevalence of several IHD risk factors. However, a substantially and significantly higher risk of IHD persisted among the Scottish respondents (1.50 (1.17, 1.91)) despite control for a wide range of risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation must be cautious because these are cross sectional data, however higher levels of conventional IHD risk factors contribute to but do not explain the comparatively high rates of IHD in Scotland. Alternative explanations for, and policy interventions to tackle, Scottish rates of IHD must be considered.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare prevalence of socioeconomic, behavioural, and physiological ischaemic heart disease (IHD) risk factors in Scotland with a comparable nation (England) and (2) find out if their distribution explains Scotland's comparatively higher IHD rate (1.62 (1.30, 2.02)). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross sectional, individual level observational study with data on socioeconomic, behavioural, and physiological characteristics, 6064 respondents from Scotland and England, (2362 and 3702 respectively), aged 45-74 and with data on all required items. MAIN RESULTS: There were significant and meaningful differences between the Scottish and English in the prevalence of several IHD risk factors. However, a substantially and significantly higher risk of IHD persisted among the Scottish respondents (1.50 (1.17, 1.91)) despite control for a wide range of risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation must be cautious because these are cross sectional data, however higher levels of conventional IHD risk factors contribute to but do not explain the comparatively high rates of IHD in Scotland. Alternative explanations for, and policy interventions to tackle, Scottish rates of IHD must be considered.
Authors: Andrew L Tambyraja; Julio A Rodriguez-Lopez; Venkatesh Ramaiah; Edward B Diethrich; Roderick T Chalmers Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Karen E Lamb; Neil S Ferguson; Yang Wang; David Ogilvie; Anne Ellaway Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2010-10-18 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Gerry McCartney; Martin Shipley; Carole Hart; George Davey-Smith; Mika Kivimäki; David Walsh; Graham C Watt; G David Batty Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gerry McCartney; Tom C Russ; David Walsh; Jim Lewsey; Michael Smith; George Davey Smith; Emmanuel Stamatakis; G David Batty Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 3.710