2023
DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102354
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Associations between socioeconomic status and stroke in American adults: A population-based study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings become relevant as insurance status may serve as an indirect surrogate of patients socioeconomic status, which has been proven to affect their risk for a myriad of pathologies. 27–29 For instance, a link between lower socioeconomic status and higher incidence of aSAH has been previously documented. 28,29 Additionally, even after adjusting for well-established risk factors, low socioeconomic status is a significant predictor of 30-day mortality and unfavorable outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…These findings become relevant as insurance status may serve as an indirect surrogate of patients socioeconomic status, which has been proven to affect their risk for a myriad of pathologies. 27–29 For instance, a link between lower socioeconomic status and higher incidence of aSAH has been previously documented. 28,29 Additionally, even after adjusting for well-established risk factors, low socioeconomic status is a significant predictor of 30-day mortality and unfavorable outcomes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Another important finding of our study was that SES significantly influenced the relationship between OBS (including dietary and lifestyle OBS) and stroke development. A recent study using NHANES showed a significantly inverse association of PIR with stroke risk ( 43 ). Our study showed that PIR significantly/marginally influenced the relationship between OBS and stroke risk, and that a protective effect of OBS was present only in participants with a PIR >3.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%