Advertisement

Socioeconomic Status and Clustering of Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors in Diabetic Patients

  1. V M Connolly, MRCP and
  2. C M Kesson, FRCP
  1. Diabetes Care Centre, Middlesbrough General Hospital Middlesbrough, Cleveland
  2. The Diabetes Centre the Vietoria Infirmary NHS Trust, Glasgow, U.K.
  1. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Vincent Connolly, MRCP, Diabetes Care Centre, Middlesbrough General Hospital, Ayresome Green Lane, Middlesbrough, Cleveland, TS5 5AZ U.K

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Correction of cardiovascular risk factors is an essential component of good diabetes care. Our goal was to examine the relationship of socioeconomic status in five risk factors: obesity, hypertension, high cholesterol, smoking, and high HbA1c.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We conducted a cross-sectional prevalence study of all patients with diabetes (n = 1,553) attending a clinic in Glasgow, U.K. Area-based codes were used to measure socioeconomic status; these ranged from 1, the most affluent, to 7, the most deprived.

RESULTS Comparing patients with NIDDM from the seven categories of socioeconomic status, we found that those from deprived categories experienced a higher prevalence of obesity. In the most affluent groups, 30% had a BMI > 30 kg/m2 compared with 47% in the most deprived categories (P < 0.002). With regard to smoking, 13% in the most affluent category smoked compared with 33% in the most deprived (P < 0.001). In patients with IDDM from affluent categories, 13% smoked compared with 34% from deprived categories (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with no cardiac risk factors fell by 30.6% from deprived category 1 to 7 (P < 0.001), and the proportion of patients with three or more risk factors rose from 8.6% in category 1 to 20.2% in category 7.

CONCLUSIONS Diabetic patients from areas of low socioeconomic status are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. To counter this, specific health education programs should be evolved and resources should be directed toward these areas.

  • Received August 14, 1995.
  • Revision received November 30, 1995.
  • Accepted November 30, 1995.
| Table of Contents
Advertisement