↓ Skip to main content

Impact of socioeconomic deprivation on screening for cardiovascular disease risk in a primary prevention population: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of socioeconomic deprivation on screening for cardiovascular disease risk in a primary prevention population: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMJ Open, March 2016
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009984
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah-Jane Lang, Gary A Abel, Jonathan Mant, Ricky Mullis

Abstract

Investigate the association between socioeconomic deprivation and completeness of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor recording in primary care, uptake of screening in people with incomplete risk factor recording and with actual CVD risk within the screened subgroup. Cross-sectional study. Nine UK general practices. 7987 people aged 50-74 years with no CVD diagnosis. CVD risk was estimated using the Framingham equation from data extracted from primary care electronic health records. Where there was insufficient information to calculate risk, patients were invited to attend a screening assessment. Proportion of patients for whom clinical data were sufficiently complete to enable CVD risk to be calculated; proportion of patients invited to screening who attended; proportion of patients who attended screening whose 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event was high (>20%). For each outcome, a set of logistic regression models were run. Crude and adjusted ORs were estimated for person-level deprivation, age, gender and smoking status. We included practice-level deprivation as a continuous variable and practice as a random effect to account for clustering. People who had lower Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores (less deprived) had significantly worse routine CVD risk factor recording (adjusted OR 0.97 (0.95 to 1.00) per IMD decile; p=0.042). Screening attendance was poorer in those with more deprivation (adjusted OR 0.89 (0.86 to 0.91) per IMD decile; p<0.001). Among those who attended screening, the most deprived were more likely to have CVD risk >20% (OR 1.09 (1.03 to 1.15) per IMD decile; p=0.004). Our data suggest that those who had the most to gain from screening were least likely to attend, potentially exacerbating existing health inequalities. Future research should focus on tailoring the delivery of CVD screening to ensure engagement of socioeconomically deprived groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 27%
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 7 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 19%
Psychology 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 8 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#607,768
of 15,922,419 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#1,204
of 14,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,673
of 267,311 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#31
of 367 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,419 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,311 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 367 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.