Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Schulich Heart Program, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Sunnybrook Research Institute Toronto, Ontario, Canada; ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Can J Cardiol. 2024 Jun;40(6):1135-1145. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2024.03.013. Epub 2024 Mar 26.
Understanding how cardiovascular disease treatment and outcomes differ for socioeconomically disadvantaged patients across countries may reveal insights into the impact of countries' policy initiatives on health equity. However, methods of undertaking these studies are poorly characterized.
We performed a scoping review to identify studies describing between-country comparisons of socioeconomic inequalities in the care of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We sought to determine the extent to which such comparisons have been conducted, the methodologies used, and outcomes assessed. We searched Medline from January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2023 for peer-reviewed English-language publications. Studies were included if they stratified patients by a measure of socioeconomic disadvantage (eg, race, ethnicity, income, education, occupation, immigrant status) and made comparisons between 2 or more countries.
Our search yielded 4861 articles focused on patients with AMI, of which 7 met our inclusion criteria. Common individual-level proxies for disadvantage were self-reported income or education. In contrast, we found no cross-country comparisons focused on other measures of disadvantage such as race and ethnicity. There was marked heterogeneity in methods and thresholds used to define socioeconomic disadvantage at the individual level. All included studies found that patients with higher income and higher educational attainment had improved AMI outcomes.
Between-country comparisons of socioeconomic disparities in AMI outcomes are scarce and heterogeneous, but all identified studies relied on metrics of disadvantage including income and education that could be uniformly measured across countries. We found no articles addressing other types of inequities, likely because of significant methodologic challenges.
了解不同国家中社会经济处于不利地位的患者在心血管疾病治疗和结局方面的差异,可能揭示出各国政策举措对健康公平的影响。然而,这些研究的方法学特征描述较差。
我们进行了范围界定审查,以确定描述急性心肌梗死(AMI)患者之间国家间社会经济不平等护理的比较研究。我们旨在确定此类比较的开展程度、使用的方法学以及评估的结局。我们从 2013 年 1 月 1 日至 2023 年 9 月 30 日在 Medline 中检索了同行评议的英文出版物。如果研究将患者按社会经济劣势的衡量标准(例如种族、民族、收入、教育、职业、移民身份)分层,并在两个或多个国家之间进行比较,则纳入研究。
我们的搜索结果为 4861 篇聚焦于 AMI 患者的文章,其中 7 篇符合纳入标准。常见的个体层面劣势替代指标是自我报告的收入或教育。相比之下,我们没有发现针对种族和民族等其他劣势衡量标准的跨国比较。在个体层面定义社会经济劣势的方法和阈值存在明显的异质性。所有纳入的研究都发现,收入较高和受教育程度较高的患者 AMI 结局更好。
AMI 结局的社会经济差异的跨国比较很少且存在异质性,但所有确定的研究都依赖于劣势指标,包括收入和教育,这些指标在各国之间可以统一衡量。我们没有发现解决其他类型不平等的文章,这可能是由于存在重大的方法学挑战。