A global perspective on cardiovascular risk factor management in patients with CHD and different educational level: SURF CHD II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Clinical guidelines recommend that patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD) change health behaviors and use medication to control risk factors (RF), eventually reducing cardiovascular risk. Nevertheless, RF management in daily practice is challenging and RF control in secondary prevention remains suboptimal. Patients with low educational level tend to have higher cardiovascular risk. This association varies indifferent contexts, yet research on health inequalities in secondary prevention has focused mostly on high-income countries. Purpose To provide a global picture of health inequalities in RF management in secondary prevention of CHD, by assessing RF recording, target attainment, and treatment by educational level in patients from four world regions. Methods The Survey of Risk Factors in Coronary Heart Disease (SURF CHD) II is a clinical audit on RF management, undertaken in patients with CHD during routine outpatient visits. The survey is easy to perform, allowing its use in low-resource centers. We studied RF recording (data availability), attainment of targets defined by guidelines, and treatment (medication and cardiac rehabilitation). RF included smoking, physical activity, waist circumference, blood pressure, LDL, non-HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and Hba1c (among diabetics). We reported the % of recording, target attainment and treatment in patients with primary/secondary schooling and in those with tertiary education. We assessed differences in RF management by educational level with logistic regression adjusted by age and sex, and stratified by region. Results 13884 patients were enrolled in 29 countries in Europe (N=10255), South-East Asia (SEA) (N=2290), the Americas (N=779) and North Africa and Eastern Mediterranean (N=560). 47.0% of participants had tertiary education, 34.5% had secondary schooling, and 18.6% primary schooling. RF recording ranged from 22.2% (waist circumference) to 93.0% (blood pressure); target attainment from 15.9% (waist circumference) to 76.9% (smoking). 50.5% participated in cardiac rehabilitation. RF information was collected more often in highly educated patients for most RF in the Americas, and for blood pressure and HBa1c in SEA. BMI and waist circumference were more frequently registered among lower-educated participants in Europe and SEA. Highly educated patients were more likely to meet RF targets for smoking in most regions, physical activity in Americas and Europe, LDL in SEA, and Non-HDL cholesterol and Hba1c in SEA and Americas regions. Patients with higher education participated more often in cardiac rehabilitation in all regions except SEA (Figure 1). Conclusions Health inequalities persist in secondary prevention of CHD: highly educated patients are generally more likely to have RF information recorded, have RF levels on target and attend cardiac rehabilitation. However, these associations present specific patterns by RF and region.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".