4.5 Article

Socioeconomic Status and Cardiovascular Risk Control in Adults

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL SCIENCES
卷 352, 期 1, 页码 36-44

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjms.2016.03.020

关键词

Subjective social status; Objective socioeconomic status; Diabetes; Cardiovascular risk factor control

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease (NIDDK) [5T35DK007431]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the association between subjective social status (SSS) and objective social status (OSS) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in adults with type 2 diabetes. Methods: Adult study participants (N = 358) were recruited from 2 primary care settings. The CVD risk factors included hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). The OSS was assessed by income, education and employment. The SSS was measured using the validated MacArthur Scales of Subjective Social Status to demarcate self-reported perceptions of having the most money, education and respected job using a ladder scale (1 = rung 1, 10 = rung 10). Multiple linear regression was used to examine associations between CVD risk factors and SSC and OSS controlling for age, sex, race or ethnicity, marital status, employment status, income, study site, comorbidity, education and insurance status. Results: Fully adjusted models showed that rung 2 (P = 0.029), rung 3 (P = 0.032), rung 8 (P = 0.049) and rung 9 (P = 0.032) of the SSS to be significantly associated with poorer DBP. Annual income = $75,000 was significantly associated with lower LDL-C (P = 0.021). Employment was associated with lower HbA1c (P = 0.036), but higher LDL-C (P = 0.002). Conclusions: The SSS and OSSS levels are differentially associated with HbA1c, DBP and LDL-C. Findings provide new information about patients' perspectives of the relationship between social status and diabetes-related outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据