Originally published November 1 2005
British study finds class is a determining factor in heart disease treatments
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
The British Journal of General Practice published a study of 12,000 people, which concluded that low-income families and manual laborers are not as likely to receive treatments to reduce their risk of heart disease.
Manual laborers and people who live in low-income areas are less likely than more affluent people to receive cholesterol and blood-pressure-lowering treatment to prevent heart disease.
That's the conclusion of a British study of over 12,000 people published in the November issue of the British Journal of General Practice.
The researchers' explanation for the finding: Methods typically used to assess a person's risk for heart disease underestimate the actual level of coronary heart disease risk associated with elevated risk factor levels in these groups of people.
"Our results suggest that 4,196 people in the study, mainly from manual social classes, might have received preventative treatment, had the scoring method been properly calibrated for this high risk population.
Patients above a set threshold are prescribed preventive treatments.
However, the Framingham score may not be relevant to the British population, the study authors said.
That's because the Framingham score is based on U.S. data more than 20 years old and didn't include people in areas with high levels of socioeconomic deprivation.
However, the risk was underestimated by 48 percent among manual laborers, compared to 31 percent for people in non-manual jobs.
The same difference was evident between people living in low-income areas and those who were more affluent.
"Two very practical implications arise from this study," study co-author Professor Graham Watt of Glasgow University said in a prepared statement.
"First, will nationally agreed clinical guidelines be adjusted to take account of the higher risks in people living in deprived areas?
Second, if this is done, and the number of patients requiring preventive treatment is substantially increased, will general practices get the extra resources needed to treat, monitor and review these extra patients, ensuring they get the benefit of life-saving treatments?"
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml