Background: We aim to assess whether social deprivation independently predicts case fatality after a stroke patient has been admitted to hospital, and to assess whether social deprivation affected duration of hospital stay. Methods: Cohort study in a tertiary teaching hospital included consecutive patients admitted to hospital within 48 h of their stroke between 1988 and 1994. Outcome measures were case fatality at 1 year and length of hospital stay. The socioeconomiccategory was derived from the postcode sectorof residence for the patients (Carstairs index). Cause of death was determined by data linkage to the Registrar General data for Scotland. Results: 2,042 stroke patients were included. A significant age difference existed between the deprivation categories (76.0 ± 10.9 years in the affluent cohort vs. 71.4 ± 10.7 years in the deprived cohort). Smoking was more common in the deprived group. ECG findings and neurological score on admission were similar between the groups. No difference existed between groups for length of hospital stay (p = 0.793), and in the proportions remaining alive at 1 year (p = 0.416). When entered into a multivariate Cox regression analysis, the deprivation categories did not predict mortality. Age, sex, Philadelphia Geriatric Center Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Scale Score, Orgogozo neurological score on admission, and ECG abnormalities were the significant predictors. Conclusions: Stroke patients living in more socially deprived areas had their strokes at an earlier age but were not at a greater risk of dying or longer hospital stay once they had been admitted to hospital.

Keywords:
Stroke, Social deprivation, Hospital stay
1.
Morris R, Carstairs V: Which deprivation? A comparison of selected deprivation indexes. J Publ Health Med 2006;13:318–326.
2.
Carstairs V, Morris R: Deprivation and Health in Scotland. Health Bull 1990;48:162–175.
3.
Morrison C, Woodward M, Leslie W, Tunstall-Pedoe H: Effect of socioeconomic group on incidence of, management of, and survival after myocardial infarction and coronary death: analysis of community coronary event register. BMJ 1997;314:541–546.
4.
Franks PJ, Adamson C, Bulpitt PF, Bulpitt CJ: Stroke death and unemployment in London. J Epidemiol Community Health 1991;45:16–18.
5.
Maheswaran R, Elliott P, Strachan DP: Socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity, and stroke mortality in Greater London and south east England. J Epidemiol Community Health 1997;51:127–131.
6.
Arrich J, Lalouschek W, Mullner M: Influence of socioeconomic status on mortality after stroke retrospective cohort study. Stroke 2005;36:310–314.
7.
McLoone P: Carstairs Codes for Scottish Postcode Sectors from the 1991 Census. Glasgow, Public Health Research Unit, University of Glasgow, 1991.
8.
Carstairs V, Morris R: Deprivation and Health in Scotland, Aberdeen. Aberdeen, University Press, 1991.
9.
Orgogozo JM, Capildeo R, Anagnostou CN, Juge O, Pere JJ, Dartigues JF, Steiner TJ, Yotis A, Rose FC: Development of a neurological score for the clinical evaluation of sylvian infarctions. Presse Med 1983;12:3039–3044.
10.
Goldstein LB, Samsa GP: Reliability of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: extension to non-neurologists in the context of a clinical trial. Stroke 1997;28:307–310.
11.
Mahoney FJ, Barthel DW: Functional evaluation: Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965:14:61–65.
12.
Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) Scale; Self-Rated Version: Incorporated in the Philadelphia Geriatric Center. Multilevel Assessment Instrument (MAI). Psychopharmacol Bull 1988;24:789–791.
13.
Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, Jaffe MW: The index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and physiological function. JAMA 1963;185:94.
14.
Spector WD, Katz S, Murphy JB, Fulton JP: The hierarchical relationship between activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:481–489.
15.
Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators: Effects of ramipril on cardiovascular and microvascular outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus: results of the HOPE study and MICRO-HOPE substudy. Lancet 2000;355:253–259.
16.
Bamford J: Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction. Lancet 1991;337:1521–1526.
17.
MacFarlane PW: Minnesota coding and the prevalence of ECG abnormalities. Heart 2000;84:582–584.
18.
Macintyre K, Stewart S, Chalmers J, Pell J, Finlayson A, Boyd J, Redpath A, McMurray J, Capewell S: Relation between socioeconomic deprivation and death from a first myocardial infarction in Scotland: population based analysis. BMJ 2001;322:1152–1153.
19.
Kapral MK, Wang Hua, Mamdani M, Tu JV: Effect of socioeconomic status on treatment and mortality after stroke. Stroke 2002;33:268–275.
20.
Eames M, Ben Shlomo Y, Marmot MG: Social deprivation and premature mortality: regional comparison across England. BMJ 1993;307:1097–1102.
21.
McLaren G: Deprivation and Health in Scotland: Insights from NHS Data. Edinburgh, IDS Scotland Publications, 1998.
22.
Weir NU, Gunkel A, McDowall M, Dennis MS: Study of the relationship between social deprivation and outcome after stroke. Stroke 2005;36:815–819.
23.
Edwards DM, Jones J: Incidence of and survival from upper aerodigestive tract cancers in the UK: the influence of deprivation. Eur J Cancer 1999;35:968–972.
24.
Pitt B, Waters D, Brown WV, van Boven AJ, Schwartz L, Title LM, Eisenberg D, Shurzinske L, McCormick LS: Aggressive lipid-lowering therapy compared with angioplasty in stable coronary artery disease: Atorvastatin versus Revascularization Treatment Investigators. N Engl J Med 1999;341:70–76.
© 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel
2006
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.