American Heart Journal
Volume 157, Issue 6 , Pages 988-994, June 2009

Adding socioeconomic status to Framingham scoring to reduce disparities in coronary risk assessment

  • Kevin Fiscella, MD, MPH

      Affiliations

    • Departments of Family Medicine, Community & Preventive Medicine, Oncology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Kevin Fiscella, MD, MPH, University of Rochester, 1381 South Ave, Rochester, NY 14620.
  • ,
  • Daniel Tancredi, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics and Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA
  • ,
  • Peter Franks, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Family Medicine, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA

Received 28 December 2008; accepted 23 March 2009.

Background

The purpose of the study was to examine the potential of adding socioeconomic status (SES) to Framingham Risk Scoring (FRS) to improve coronary heart disease (CHD) prediction by SES.

Methods

We assessed the effect of measures of SES (<12 years of education or low income) on model discrimination and calibration when added to FRS in a prospective cohort, Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities. We validated use of this model in a second cohort, the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey linked to the National Death Index.

Results

Based on FRS alone, persons of higher and lower SES had a predicted CHD risk of 3.7% and 3.9%, respectively, compared with observed risks of 3.2% and 5.6%. Adding SES to a model with FRS improved calibration with predicted risk estimates of 3.1% and 5.2% for those with higher and lower SES, mitigating the discrepancy between predicted and observed CHD events for low-SES persons. Model discrimination (area under the receiver operator curve) was not significantly affected, and consistent findings were observed in the validation sample. Inclusion of SES in the model resulted in upgrading of risk classification for 15.1% of low-SES participants (95% CI 13.9-29.4%).

Conclusions

Standard FRS underestimates CHD risk for those at low SES; treatment decisions ignoring SES may exacerbate SES disparities. Adding SES to CHD risk assessment reduces this bias.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0002-8703(09)00220-8

doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2009.03.019

American Heart Journal
Volume 157, Issue 6 , Pages 988-994, June 2009