METHODS: This was a cross sectional study design. A total of 347 respondents from low household income groups, including persons with disability and Orang Asli were recruited from E-kasih. A semi-guided self-administered questionnaire was used. QOL measured by EQ. 5D utility value and health status measured by visual analogue score (VAS). Descriptive statistic, bivariate Chi-square analysis and binary logistic regression were conducted to determine factors influencing low QOL and poor health status.
RESULTS: Majority of the respondents were Malay, female (61%), 63% were married, 60% were employed and 46% with total household income of less than 1 thousand Ringgit Malaysia. 70% of them were not having any chronic medical problems. Factors that associated with low QOL were male, single, low household income, and present chronic medical illness, while poor health status associated with female, lower education level and present chronic medical illness. Logistic regression analysis has showed that determinants of low QOL was present chronic illness [AOR 4.15 95%CI (2.42, 7.13)], while determinants for poor health status were; female [AOR 1.94 95%CI (1.09,3.44)], lower education [AOR 3.07 95%CI (1.28,7.34)] and present chronic illness [AOR 2.53 95%CI (1.39,4.61)].
CONCLUSION: Low socioeconomic population defined as low total household income in this study. Low QOL of this population determined by present chronic illness, while poor health status determined by gender, education level and chronic medical illness.
METHODS: In the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiological study (PURE), individuals aged 35-70 years from urban and rural communities in 27 countries were considered for inclusion. We recorded information on participants' sociodemographic characteristics, risk factors, medication use, cardiac investigations, and interventions. 168 490 participants who enrolled in the first two of the three phases of PURE were followed up prospectively for incident cardiovascular disease and death.
FINDINGS: From Jan 6, 2005 to May 6, 2019, 202 072 individuals were recruited to the study. The mean age of women included in the study was 50·8 (SD 9·9) years compared with 51·7 (10) years for men. Participants were followed up for a median of 9·5 (IQR 8·5-10·9) years. Women had a lower cardiovascular disease risk factor burden using two different risk scores (INTERHEART and Framingham). Primary prevention strategies, such as adoption of several healthy lifestyle behaviours and use of proven medicines, were more frequent in women than men. Incidence of cardiovascular disease (4·1 [95% CI 4·0-4·2] for women vs 6·4 [6·2-6·6] for men per 1000 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·75 [95% CI 0·72-0·79]) and all-cause death (4·5 [95% CI 4·4-4·7] for women vs 7·4 [7·2-7·7] for men per 1000 person-years; aHR 0·62 [95% CI 0·60-0·65]) were also lower in women. By contrast, secondary prevention treatments, cardiac investigations, and coronary revascularisation were less frequent in women than men with coronary artery disease in all groups of countries. Despite this, women had lower risk of recurrent cardiovascular disease events (20·0 [95% CI 18·2-21·7] versus 27·7 [95% CI 25·6-29·8] per 1000 person-years in men, adjusted hazard ratio 0·73 [95% CI 0·64-0·83]) and women had lower 30-day mortality after a new cardiovascular disease event compared with men (22% in women versus 28% in men; p<0·0001). Differences between women and men in treatments and outcomes were more marked in LMICs with little differences in HICs in those with or without previous cardiovascular disease.
INTERPRETATION: Treatments for cardiovascular disease are more common in women than men in primary prevention, but the reverse is seen in secondary prevention. However, consistently better outcomes are observed in women than in men, both in those with and without previous cardiovascular disease. Improving cardiovascular disease prevention and treatment, especially in LMICs, should be vigorously pursued in both women and men.
FUNDING: Full funding sources are listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).
OBJECTIVE: Use dietary diversity data to explore consumption patterns of fish and high-quality food items within the household and examine factors associated with delayed introduction of fish to infants and young children.
METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of 496 households with children <36 months participating in the Aquaculture for Income and Nutrition project in Bangladesh. Data collected included household characteristics, women's dietary diversity score, and minimum dietary diversity score along with data on Infant and Young Child Feeding practices.
RESULTS: Most children (63.4%) met the threshold for minimum dietary diversity. Despite having received extensive nutrition education related to including fish in complementary foods, only half of the caretakers introduced fish at 6 months and the mean age of introduction of small fish was 8.7 months. Meat and fish were not common in infant diets but increased with child age. Concerns about bones were a major barrier to incorporating fish into infant diets.
CONCLUSION: Given its nutrient profile and widespread availability in certain contexts, fish could be an underutilized opportunity to improve nutrition and health outcomes of infants and young children. Further research, including utilizing food processing technologies, is needed to develop appropriate responses to overcome these barriers.