4.5 Article

Growth and living conditions in childhood and hypertension in adult life:: a longitudinal study

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYPERTENSION
卷 20, 期 10, 页码 1951-1956

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00004872-200210000-00013

关键词

hypertension; slow fetal growth; rapid childhood growth; poor childhood living conditions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To examine the interplay between childhood growth and living conditions in the development of hypertension. Design A longitudinal study of people whose growth between birth and 12 years, and social circumstances during childhood and adult life, were recorded. Setting Helsinki, Finland. Participants Eight thousand seven hundred and sixty men and women born in Helsinki University Central Hospital during 1934-44, who attended child welfare clinics in the city and were still resident in Finland in 1971. Main outcome measures Incidence of hypertension defined by prescription of medication. Results The 1404 children who later developed hypertension grew differently to other children. Low birthweight and shortness or thinness at birth were followed by rapid compensatory growth in weight and height and an above-average body mass index (BMI, kg/m(2)) from the age of 8 years onwards. Some 25% of children with low birthweight but high BMI at 12 years subsequently developed hypertension, compared to 9% of those with high birthweight but low BMI. Growth had large effects on the risk of later hypertension in children living in poor social conditions, but only small effects in children in good living conditions. Living conditions in adult life did not affect the risk of hypertension. Conclusions Hypertension originates in slow fetal growth followed by rapid compensatory growth in childhood. This path of growth has a greater effect on the risk of disease among children who live in poor social conditions. Living conditions in adult life do not seem to be important. J Hypertens 20:1951-1956(C) 2002 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

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