Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28301496›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Equity in healthcare for coronary heart disease, Wales (UK) 2004-2010: A population-based electronic cohort study.

William King, Arron Lacey, James White, Daniel Farewell, Frank Dunstan, David Fone

Open access · goldAbstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

William KingAneurin Bevan Gwent Local Public Health Team, Public Health Wales, Newport, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4341-5620
Arron LaceyCollege of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7983-8073
James WhiteCentre for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Public Health Interventions and South East Wales Trials Unit, Cardiff University, Wales, United Kingdom.
Daniel FarewellDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8871-1653
Frank DunstanDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1043-5281
David FoneDivision of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.
Cardiff University · GBPublic Health Wales · GBSwansea University · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0902108Medical Research Council MR/K006525/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite substantial falls in coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality in the United Kingdom (UK), marked socioeconomic inequalities in CHD risk factors and CHD mortality persist. We investigated whether inequity in CHD healthcare in Wales (UK) could contribute to the observed social gradient in CHD mortality. METHODS AND

findingsLinking data from primary and secondary care we constructed an electronic cohort of individuals (n = 1199342) with six year follow-up, 2004-2010. We identified indications for recommended CHD interventions, measured time to their delivery, and estimated risk of receiving the interventions for each of five ordered deprivation groups using a time-to-event approach with Cox regression frailty models. Interventions in primary and secondary prevention included risk-factor measurement, smoking management, statins and antihypertensive therapy, and in established CHD included medication and revascularization. For primary prevention, five of the 11 models favoured the more deprived and one favoured the less deprived. For medication in secondary prevention and established CHD, one of the 15 models favoured the more deprived and one the less deprived. In relation to revascularization, six of the 12 models favoured the less deprived and none favoured the more deprived-this evidence of inequity exemplified by a hazard ratio for revascularization in stable angina of 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.68, 0.92). The main study limitation is the possibility of under-ascertainment or misclassification of clinical indications and treatment from variability in coding.

conclusionsPrimary care components of CHD healthcare were equitably delivered. Evidence of inequity was found for revascularization procedures, although this inequity is likely to have only a modest effect on social gradients in CHD mortality. Policymakers should focus on reducing inequalities in CHD risk factors, particularly smoking, as these, rather than inequity in healthcare, are likely to be key drivers of inequalities in CHD mortality.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsSocial JusticeCohort StudiesCoronary DiseaseHistory, 21st CenturyHumansRisk FactorsSocial ClassWales

Identifiers

PMID28301496
PMCPMC5354260
OpenAlexW2596625995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.