Health inequalities associated with neighbourhood deprivation in the Quebec population with hypertension in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although a number of studies look at prevalence, incidence, treatment, mortality and morbidity in relation to hypertension, few have taken into account the effect of residential neighbourhood on these health indicators in the population diagnosed with hypertension. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to measure and compare prevalence, mortality, morbidity, use of medical resources and treatments in relation to the level of material and social deprivation of the area of residence, in a population with a diagnosis of hypertension in primary prevention for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in Quebec in 2006-2007. METHODS: This study is based on a secondary analysis of the medical administrative data of the Quebec health insurance board, the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec, for a cohort of 276 793 patients aged 30 years or older who had been diagnosed with hypertension in 2006 or 2007, but who did not have a known diagnosis of CVD. The health indicators adjusted for age and sex are prevalence, death, a cardiovascular event, physician visits, emergency department visits and use of antihypertensives. Twenty-five types of areas of residence were obtained by crossing the material and social deprivation quintiles. RESULTS: Compared with patients living in materially and socially advantaged areas, those living in deprived areas were at 46% higher risk of a cardiovascular event, 47% higher risk of being frequent emergency department visitors and 31% higher risk of being frequent users of a general practitioner's services, but 25% lower risk of being frequent users of medical specialists' services. Little or no variation was observed in the use of antihypertensives. CONCLUSION: This study reveals the existence, in a CVD primary prevention context, of large variations in a number of health indicators among hypertensive patients owing to the material and social deprivation of residential neighbourhood. It is therefore important to take the socioeconomic context into account when planning interventions to prevent CVDs and their consequences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".