4.5 Article

Sex inequalities in ischaemic heart disease in general practice: cross sectional survey

期刊

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 322, 期 7290, 页码 832-834A

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7290.832

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To study differences in treatment for men and women with ischaemic heart disease by using. standards defined in England's national service framework for coronary artery disease. Design Cross sectional survey using routinely collected data. Setting 18 practices in 18 primary care groups in Trent Region. Subjects 5891 men and women aged over 35 years with a diagnosis of ischaemic hart disease or prescription for nitrates recorded on computer. Min outcome measure Difference in the proportion of men and women with ischaemic heart disease and taking lipid lowering treatment. Results Women were less likely than men to have a recording of body mass index (79% (2197/2783) v 82% (2552/3102), P = 0.002), smoking (86% (2386) v 89% (2779), P<0.0001), and blood pressure (95% (2643) v 96% (2986), P=0.04). Women were also less likely to have a recording of fasting cholesterol concentration (35% (968) v 50% (1550), P < 0.0001) but were more likely to be obese (25% (558/2197) v 20% (514/2552), P < 0.0001) and have their most recently recorded blood pressure value over the recommended 140/85 mm Hg (60% (1598/2643) v 52% (1553/2986), P < 0.0001). Although a higher proportion of women had a raised serum cholesterol concentration (77% (749/968) v 67% (1043/1550), P<0.0001), men were more likely to take aspirin (76% (2358) v 71% (1979), P<0.0001), have a recorded diagnosis of hyperlipidaemia, (13% (418) v 10% (274), P<0.0001), and be prescribed lipid lowering drugs (31% (973) v 21% (596), P<0.0001). These differences remained despite adjustments for the practice where the patient is registered, age, smoking status, obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. Conclusion The results suggest a systematic bias towards men compared with women in terms of secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease.

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