Socioeconomic Differences in Patient Pathways of Secondary Prevention after Ischaemic Heart Disease: A Nationwide Cohort Study
Clicks: 2
ID: 316423
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.3
/100
2 views
1 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #183 of 196 articles by views in european journal of preventive cardiology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 196 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
AIMS: Socioeconomic differences in secondary prevention following ischaemic heart disease (IHD) remain insufficiently understood, particularly during the transition from hospital to primary care. This study examined disparities in cardiac rehabilitation (CR), preventive medication, and general practice (GP) follow-up in a nationwide cohort. METHODS: This nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study included 93,159 individuals hospitalised with IHD between 2016 and 2022. Measures included CR uptake and adherence, redeemed antiplatelet and statin prescriptions, annual GP follow-up, and a count of three components as an indicator of comprehensive secondary prevention. Relative risks (RR) were estimated using modified Poisson regression, adjusted for demographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: Within six months, 41.2% initiated CR, of whom 73.7% adhered. During follow-up, 86.1% and 77.0% redeemed antiplatelet and statin prescriptions, respectively, while 56.0% attended annual GP follow-up. Only 25.9% achieved all three components. The likelihood of receiving all three components was lower among individuals with short education (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.88-0.94), those living alone (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.75-0.79), individuals with low income (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.67-0.73), or unemployment (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.75-0.89). Socioeconomic differences were most pronounced for CR uptake. Notably, 7.6% of individuals received none of the recommended components, indicating a subgroup with low engagement in secondary prevention. CONCLUSION: Substantial socioeconomic differences persist in secondary prevention after IHD, reflecting inequalities in access to and engagement with care, despite a universal healthcare system. Addressing these gaps requires equity-oriented, cross-sectoral strategies at critical transition points in care.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7163916229
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Marie Louise Svendsen, Jens Refsgaard, Bo Christensen, Sanne Moeller Palner, Vibeke Lynggaard, Thomas Maribo |
| Journal | european journal of preventive cardiology |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/eurjpc/zwag309
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.