Integrated Cardiovascular Clinical Network, Country Health SA Local Health Network, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2013 Aug 23;3(8):e003203. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003203.
Cardiovascular (CVD) mortality disparities between rural/regional and urban-dwelling residents of Australia are persistent. Unavailability of biomedical CVD risk factor data has, until now, limited efforts to understand the causes of the disparity. This study aimed to further investigate such disparities.
Comparison of (1) CVD risk measures between a regional (Greater Green Triangle Risk Factor Study (GGT RFS, cross-sectional study, 2004-2006) and an urban population (North West Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS, longitudinal cohort study, 2004-2006); (2) Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) CVD mortality rates between these and other Australian regions; and (3) ABS CVD mortality rates by an area-level indicator of socioeconomic status, the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage (IRSD).
Greater Green Triangle (GGT, Limestone Coast, Wimmera and Corangamite Shires) of South-Western Victoria and North-West Adelaide (NWA).
1563 GGT RFS and 3036 NWAHS stage 2 participants (aged 25-74) provided some information (self-administered questionnaire +/- anthropometric and biomedical measurements).
Age-group specific measures of absolute CVD risk, ABS CVD mortality rates by study group and Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) region.
Few significant differences in CVD risk between the study regions, with mean absolute CVD risk ranging from approximately 1% in the age group 35-39 years to 14% in the age group 70-74 years. [corrected]. Similar mean 2003-2007 (crude) mortality rates in GGT (98, 95% CI 87 to 111), NWA (103, 95% CI 96 to 110) and regional Australia (92, 95% CI 91 to 94). NWA mortality rates exceeded that of other city areas (70, 95% CI 69 to 71). Lower measures of socioeconomic status were associated with worse CVD outcomes regardless of geographic location.
Metropolitan areas do not always have better CVD risk factor profiles and outcomes than rural/regional areas. Needs assessments are required for different settings to elucidate relative contributions of the multiple determinants of risk and appropriate cardiac healthcare strategies to improve outcomes.
澳大利亚农村/地区和城市居民的心血管(CVD)死亡率存在差异,且这种差异持续存在。由于缺乏生物医学 CVD 风险因素数据,目前还无法了解造成这种差异的原因。本研究旨在进一步调查这种差异。
(1)比较一个地区(大绿三角风险因素研究(GGT RFS),横断面研究,2004-2006 年)和一个城市人群(北阿德莱德健康研究(NWAHS),纵向队列研究,2004-2006 年)的 CVD 风险指标;(2)比较澳大利亚统计局(ABS)这些地区和其他澳大利亚地区的 CVD 死亡率;(3)比较 ABS 的 CVD 死亡率与一个衡量社会经济地位的区域指标——相对社会经济劣势指数(IRSD)。
澳大利亚南维多利亚州的大绿三角(GGT)(石灰岩海岸、威默拉和科朗加米特郡)和北阿德莱德(NWA)。
1563 名 GGT RFS 和 3036 名 NWAHS 阶段 2 参与者(年龄 25-74 岁)提供了一些信息(自我管理问卷+/-人体测量和生物医学测量)。
按年龄组划分的绝对 CVD 风险指标、按研究组和澳大利亚标准地理分类(ASGC)区域划分的 ABS CVD 死亡率。
研究区域之间 CVD 风险差异较小,在 35-39 岁年龄组,绝对 CVD 风险约为 1%,在 70-74 岁年龄组,绝对 CVD 风险约为 14%。[校正后]2003-2007 年 GGT(98,95%CI 87 至 111)、NWA(103,95%CI 96 至 110)和澳大利亚区域(92,95%CI 91 至 94)的平均死亡率(粗死亡率)相似。NWA 的死亡率高于其他城市地区(103,95%CI 96 至 110)。无论地理位置如何,社会经济地位较低的人群与 CVD 结局较差相关。
大都市地区的 CVD 风险因素状况和结果并不总是优于农村/地区。需要对不同环境进行需求评估,以阐明风险的多种决定因素的相对贡献,并制定适当的心脏保健策略,以改善结果。