BACKGROUND: Various methodologic approaches have been used to estimate the role of risk factors in explaining the social gradient in coronary heart disease (CHD). Our objective was to examine whether there is a discrepancy in results obtained using the relative and absolute approaches. METHODS: Data are from the Whitehall II prospective cohort study on 5363 men who were 40- to 62-year-old at the start of the 11-year follow-up period. RESULTS: One or more of the 4 conventional risk factors examined (smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes) were present for 77% of individuals in the low socioeconomic group compared with 68% in the high socioeconomic group. The relative risk for incident CHD in the low socioeconomic group was 1.66 (95% confidence interval = 1.20 to 2.29) compared with the high group. Standardizing the distribution of risk factors in the low and high socioeconomic group to the overall study sample reduced relative risk by 16% and absolute risk by 14%. We also computed the population attributable risk (PAR) to indicate the reduction in CHD if the risk factor were completely removed from the population. The PAR associated with having at least one risk factor was 41% (95% confidence interval = 33% to 57%) in the high and 58% (13% to 91%) in the low socioeconomic group. CONCLUSIONS: In situations where the goal is to remove social differences in the distribution of risk factors, conventional risk factors explain a similar proportion of the social gradient in CHD, whether using the relative or absolute approaches to change in risk. This is not comparable to population attributable risk calculations, in which the goal is to completely remove the risk factors from the population. Failure to recognize that these methods address different questions seems to be the reason for discrepancies in previous results.
BACKGROUND: Various methodologic approaches have been used to estimate the role of risk factors in explaining the social gradient in coronary heart disease (CHD). Our objective was to examine whether there is a discrepancy in results obtained using the relative and absolute approaches. METHODS: Data are from the Whitehall II prospective cohort study on 5363 men who were 40- to 62-year-old at the start of the 11-year follow-up period. RESULTS: One or more of the 4 conventional risk factors examined (smoking, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes) were present for 77% of individuals in the low socioeconomic group compared with 68% in the high socioeconomic group. The relative risk for incident CHD in the low socioeconomic group was 1.66 (95% confidence interval = 1.20 to 2.29) compared with the high group. Standardizing the distribution of risk factors in the low and high socioeconomic group to the overall study sample reduced relative risk by 16% and absolute risk by 14%. We also computed the population attributable risk (PAR) to indicate the reduction in CHD if the risk factor were completely removed from the population. The PAR associated with having at least one risk factor was 41% (95% confidence interval = 33% to 57%) in the high and 58% (13% to 91%) in the low socioeconomic group. CONCLUSIONS: In situations where the goal is to remove social differences in the distribution of risk factors, conventional risk factors explain a similar proportion of the social gradient in CHD, whether using the relative or absolute approaches to change in risk. This is not comparable to population attributable risk calculations, in which the goal is to completely remove the risk factors from the population. Failure to recognize that these methods address different questions seems to be the reason for discrepancies in previous results.
Authors: J Stamler; R Stamler; J D Neaton; D Wentworth; M L Daviglus; D Garside; A R Dyer; K Liu; P Greenland Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-12-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Salim Yusuf; Steven Hawken; Stephanie Ounpuu; Tony Dans; Alvaro Avezum; Fernando Lanas; Matthew McQueen; Andrzej Budaj; Prem Pais; John Varigos; Liu Lisheng Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Sep 11-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mustafa Hussein; Ana V Diez Roux; Mahasin S Mujahid; Theresa A Hastert; Kiarri N Kershaw; Alain G Bertoni; Ana Baylin Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Eric B Loucks; John W Lynch; Louise Pilote; Rebecca Fuhrer; Nisha D Almeida; Hugues Richard; Golareh Agha; Joanne M Murabito; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mika Kivimäki; David Gimeno; Jane E Ferrie; G David Batty; Tuula Oksanen; Markus Jokela; Marianna Virtanen; Paula Salo; Tasnime N Akbaraly; Marko Elovainio; Jaana Pentti; Jussi Vahtera Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Daniëlle A I Groffen; Hans Bosma; Annemarie Koster; Mikaela B von Bonsdorff; Thor Aspelund; Gudny Eiriksdottir; Brenda W J H Penninx; Gertrudis I J M Kempen; Clemens Kirschbaum; Vilmundur Gudnason; Tamara B Harris Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2014-09-28 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Martin O'Flaherty; Jennifer Bishop; Adam Redpath; Terry McLaughlin; David Murphy; James Chalmers; Simon Capewell Journal: BMJ Date: 2009-07-14
Authors: Helle Wallach-Kildemoes; Finn Diderichsen; Allan Krasnik; Theis Lange; Morten Andersen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-08-04 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Carla Koopman; Aloysia A M van Oeffelen; Michiel L Bots; Peter M Engelfriet; W M Monique Verschuren; Lenie van Rossem; Ineke van Dis; Simon Capewell; Ilonca Vaartjes Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 3.295