Trends and Regional Variation in Prevalence of Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Association With Socioeconomic Status in Canada, 2005-2016
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Cardiovascular disease remains the second leading cause of death in Canada. Monitoring and tracking the trends and disparities in major cardiovascular risk factors could provide benchmarks for future cardiovascular health strategies. Objective: To investigate the temporal trends, regional variations, and socioeconomic disparities in major cardiovascular risk factors in Canada from 2005 to 2016. Design, Setting, and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional survey study included adults aged 20 years and older from 6 Canadian Community Health Survey cycles between 2005 and 2016. Cardiovascular risk factors included hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and current smoking. Socioeconomic status was measured using equivalized household income. Data analysis was performed from September 2019 to April 2020. Exposures: A total of 112 health regions and socioeconomic status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Age- and sex-adjusted prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and current smoking by year; health regions; and socioeconomic status. Absolute numbers were rounded to base 100 for confidentiality purposes, and percentages were based on weighted numbers. Slope index of inequality (SII) and relative index of inequality (RII) were calculated to assess absolute and relative socioeconomic inequalities, respectively. Results: A total of 670 000 respondents (329 000 [49.1%] men; 341 000 [50.9%] women) aged 20 years and older from 6 survey cycles were enrolled for this study. The largest age group was those aged 40 to 59 years (eg, 2005 cycle: 40.2% [95% CI, 39.9%-40.6%]). In the 2015/2016 cycle, the overall age- and sex-adjusted prevalence rates of hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and current smoking were 20.7% (95% CI, 20.4%-21.1%), 7.2% (95% CI, 7.0%-7.5%), 20.1% (95% CI, 19.7%-20.6%), and 17.8% (95% CI, 17.4%-18.2%), respectively. From 2005 to 2016, there was a significant increase in the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and obesity (eg, prevalence of diabetes in both sexes, 2005: 5.8% [95% CI, 5.6%-6.0%]; 2015/2016: 7.2% [95% CI, 7.0%-7.5%]; P < .001) but a significant decrease in the prevalence of current smoking (both sexes, 2005: 22.1% [95% CI, 21.7%-22.5%]; 2015/2016: 17.8% [95% CI, 17.4%-18.2%]; P < .001). The prevalence of all the risk factors varied widely across health regions (eg, obesity, Vancouver Health Service Delivery Area: 6.7% [95% CI, 4.5%-9.0%]; Miramichi Area: 36.8% [95% CI, 27.3%-46.3%]). In addition to obesity among men, all risk factors tended to be more common among those with lower income (eg, prevalence of hypertension in both sexes, 2015/2016, lowest income group: 23.2% [95% CI, 22.4%-24.0%]; highest income group: 18.4% [95% CI, 17.7%-19.1%]). The SII and RII indicated consistent absolute and relative socioeconomic inequalities in hypertension, diabetes, and current smoking over time (eg, RII for hypertension in both sexes, 2005: 1.25; 95% CI, 1.18-1.33; 2015/2016: 1.34; 95% CI, 1.26-1.43). However, the phenomenon of absolute and relative socioeconomic inequalities in obesity was only observed among women (eg, RII for 2015/2016 for obesity in women; 1.74 (95% CI, 1.56-1.93); men: 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99-1.21). Conclusions and Relevance: During the study period, the prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and obesity significantly increased, while the prevalence of current smoking significantly decreased. Geographic and socioeconomic gaps should be considered and addressed in future interventions and policies targeted at reducing these cardiovascular risk factors in Canada.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».