Ethnic group differences in cardiovascular risk assessment scores

There are marked inequalities in cardiovascular disease (CVD) incidence and outcomes between ethnic groups. CVD risk scores are increasingly used in preventive medicine and should aim to accurately reflect differences between ethnic groups. Ethnicity, as an independent risk factor for CVD, can be accounted for in CVD risk scores primarily using two methods, either directly incorporating it as a risk factor in the algorithm or through a post hoc adjustment of risk. In a study published in the journal Ethnicity & Health, Andrew Dalton and colleagues compared these two methods in terms of their prediction of CVD across ethnic groups using representative national data from England.

They carried out a cross-sectional study using data from the Health Survey for England. We measured ethnic group differences in risk estimation between the QRISK2, which includes ethnicity and Joint British Societies 2 (JBS2) algorithm, which uses post hoc risk adjustment factor for South Asian men. They reported that the QRISK2 score produces lower median estimates of CVD risk than JBS2. They concluded that ethnicity is an important CVD risk factor. Current scoring tools used in the UK produce significantly different estimates of CVD risk within ethnic groups, particularly in South Asian men.Work to accurately estimate CVD risk in ethnic minority groups is important if CVD prevention programmes are to address health inequalities.

Comments

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...

Relevance Over Recall: Rethinking How AI Uses Clinical Data

Our article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine argues that safe and effective AI in healthcare must incorporate mechanisms that emulate human judgement - down-weighting old, inaccurate or superseded information and prioritising what is recent, clinically relevant and reaffirmed - so that AI supports, rather than disrupts, high-quality patient care. Clinicians constantly revise, reinterpret and filter past information so that only what is relevant, accurate and timely shapes present-day management decisions; medical records function as dynamic “working tools” rather than fixed archives. By contrast, many AI systems lack this capacity for selective forgetting and often treat all historical data as equally meaningful. This can lead to outdated or low-confidence diagnoses being repeatedly resurfaced, persistent labels influencing clinical expectations, and irrelevant, long-resolved events cluttering summaries and decision-support outputs. Such indiscriminate recall...

Medical Centre

Search This Blog