Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Individual and cumulative effects of social determinants of health on cardiovascular disease: Gender-specific insights from a cross-sectional NHANES study

  • Xiuming Yang,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China

  • Jiahui Zhou,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis

    Affiliation Department of Cardiology, Gusu School, Nanjing Medical University, The First People’s Hospital of Kunshan, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China

  • Feier Wu,

    Roles Investigation, Methodology

    Affiliation Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China

  • Zehu Xue,

    Roles Formal analysis, Project administration

    Affiliation Department of Nephrology, Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University, Kunshan, China

  • Zongliang Yu

    Roles Funding acquisition, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    zl-yu@sohu.com

    Affiliations Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Kunshan Hospital of Jiangsu University, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China, Department of Cardiology, Gusu School, Nanjing Medical University, The First People’s Hospital of Kunshan, Kunshan, Jiangsu, China

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to examine the associations of individual and cumulative social determinants of health (SDoH) with cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevalence and sex-specific disparities among U.S. adults.

Methods

Employing a cross-sectional design, we analyzed data from the nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES, 2005–2018). Five core SDoH domains were operationalized through eight validated sub-indicators. Associations between individual and cumulative SDoH and CVD prevalence were assessed using survey-weighted multivariate logistic regression, with sex-stratified analyses.

Results

In this cross-sectional sample of 35,781 participants, adverse individual SDoH and higher cumulative adverse SDoH were associated with higher odds of prevalent CVD. In the fully adjusted model (Model 2), unemployment showed a large association with prevalent CVD (AOR = 2.27, 95% CI: 2.01–2.57). In sex-stratified analyses, point estimates for some SDoH indicators were higher in women than in men, but 95% confidence intervals overlapped for many comparisons and sex-by-SDoH interaction tests were not statistically significant (all P for interaction > 0.05). Among individual SDoH indicators, unemployment and low income (PIR < 300%), as well as food insecurity, showed the strongest independent associations with prevalent CVD.

Conclusion

Both individual and cumulative SDoH were independently associated with prevalent CVD. Sex-stratified analyses suggested that some point estimates were larger in women than in men, but sex-by-SDoH interaction tests were not statistically significant.

1. Introduction

Globally, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of mortality [1]. Recent epidemiological statistics from the American Heart Association (AHA) indicate that global CVD deaths increased from 12.4 million in 1990 to 19.8 million in 2022 [2]. Projections from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study suggest that CVD will remain a leading contributor to global age-standardized mortality from 2022 to 2050 [3]. Social determinants of health (SDoH) refer to structural conditions that shape health trajectories across the life course, from prenatal development through older adulthood [4]. The Healthy People 2030 framework categorizes SDoH into five domains: (1) Economic Stability, (2) Education Access and Quality, (3) Health Care Access and Quality, (4) Neighborhood and Built Environment, and (5) Social and Community Context [5]. Within this framework, economic stability includes employment and income/poverty, as well as material hardship (e.g., food insecurity and housing instability). Empirical studies have linked adverse SDoH profiles to higher CVD risk and chronic low-grade inflammation [6]. CVD prevalence shows marked socioeconomic gradients, with a disproportionately higher burden among low-income groups, individuals with lower educational attainment, and residents of deprived neighborhoods, underscoring the impact of SDoH [7]. SDoH are key structural factors that mediate racial inequalities in all-cause and CVD-specific mortality by shaping access to health-promoting resources [8]. Although existing evidence underscores the central role of SDoH in population-level CVD prevention, most epidemiological studies evaluate single SDoH domains and overlook the synergistic effects of cumulative socioeconomic exposures [9,10]. Further investigation is needed to clarify how individual and cumulative SDoH are associated with CVD incidence. Given the sociodemographic complexity of the United States (US) population, population-representative and methodologically rigorous studies are needed. In this cross-sectional study, we used nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to examine associations between individual-level and cumulative SDoH and CVD prevalence among adults in the US.

We hypothesized that adverse SDoH are associated with CVD prevalence in additive and potentially synergistic ways, such that greater cumulative exposure is associated with a disproportionately higher CVD prevalence. We further examined sex as an exploratory effect modifier to assess whether these associations differ between men and women. Accordingly, we aimed to (1) evaluate associations between individual and cumulative SDoH and CVD prevalence, (2) assess whether cumulative SDoH exhibit additive versus potentially synergistic patterns, and (3) explore sex-specific differences in these associations.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Data source

Data were obtained from seven cycles of the NHANES (2005–2018), a nationally representative survey of non-institutionalized US adults. NHANES uses a multistage probability sampling design to produce nationally representative, population-weighted estimates for the non-institutionalized US population. All procedures complied with ethical standards, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Detailed methodological documentation, including sampling procedures and quality-control metrics, is available through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) NHANES website. The initial sample included 70,190 non-institutionalized participants from seven NHANES cycles conducted between 2005 and 2018. Exclusion criteria were (1) incomplete SDoH measures and (2) missing CVD status data (MCQ160B–MCQ160F). The final analytic sample comprised 35,781 participants; the selection process is shown in Fig 1.

2.2 Variables

2.2.1 Exposure.

We operationalized SDoH using eight measures across five core domains derived from NHANES questionnaire data. We derived a composite metric by aggregating eight SDoH components to quantify cumulative exposure to adverse socioeconomic factors. This index ranges from 0 to 8, with 0 indicating no adverse SDoH exposure and ≥1 indicating at least one adverse exposure [11,12]. Each indicator was dichotomized and scored as 1 (unfavorable) or 0 (favorable): (1) employment status (unemployed vs employed, student, or retired); (2) family income-to-poverty ratio (<300% vs ≥ 300%); (3) food security (marginal, low, or very low security vs full security); (4) educational attainment (<high school vs ≥high school graduate); (5) health insurance coverage (uninsured vs insured); (6) insurance type (public insurance or no insurance vs private insurance); (7) housing tenure (renting or other arrangements vs owning a home); and (8) marital status (not married/not living with a partner vs married/living with a partner). The cumulative SDoH score (range, 0–8) was calculated as the unweighted sum of the eight indicators. We constructed the cumulative SDoH index as an unweighted additive count to represent the overall burden of co-occurring social risks across domains, consistent with cumulative-risk (or cumulative-burden) frameworks. Under this approach, the number of adverse exposures (rather than any single domain) summarizes combined social disadvantage that may jointly shape health. Unweighted additive indices are widely used in cumulative-risk research because they are parsimonious and avoid strong assumptions about the relative causal importance of heterogeneous indicators, which are often correlated and may operate through shared pathways [12,13]. We acknowledge that equal weighting is a simplifying assumption rather than a validated causal structure. Operational definitions and measurement specifications are provided in Supplementary Table 1 in S1 File.

2.2.2 Outcome.

CVD status was ascertained using self-reported physician diagnoses from the NHANES Medical Conditions Questionnaire. Participants were asked, “Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you had (1) coronary heart disease, (2) angina pectoris, (3) myocardial infarction, or (4) a cerebrovascular event?” Participants who answered “yes” to any item were classified as having prevalent CVD.

2.2.3 Covariates.

The covariates include age (20–39 years, 40–59 years, 60–79 years, or ≥80 years), sex (male or female), race (White, Black, Hispanic, and other races), and poverty-to-income ratio (PIR), which is categorized as ≥300% and <300%.

2.3 Statistical analysis

Following guidance from the CDC and the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) for complex survey analyses, we applied NHANES sampling weights. When pooling seven consecutive 2-year survey cycles, we rescaled the original 2-year Mobile Examination Center (MEC) examination weights to preserve national representativeness. Participants were stratified by CVD status (present/absent) for comparative analyses. Specifically, when combining seven 2-year cycles (2005–2006–2017–2018), we created 14-year MEC weights by dividing the 2-year MEC examination weight (WTMEC2YR) by 7, consistent with NCHS guidance for pooling cycles. The survey design was specified using masked variance units, and variances were estimated using Taylor series linearization. Continuous variables were summarized as means with standard errors (standard error (SE)). Categorical variables were summarized as weighted proportions to account for the complex survey design. Between-group comparisons were hypothesis driven: independent t-tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for continuous variables, and χ² or Fisher’s exact tests were used for categorical variables. Baseline characteristics (e.g., sex and race/ethnicity) were compared by CVD status. We assessed correlations among the eight SDoH indicators using Spearman’s rank correlation (ρ). We used survey-weighted multivariable logistic regression to quantify associations between CVD and two SDoH constructs: individual SDoH indicators and the cumulative adverse SDoH score. Models were adjusted for age, sex, and race/ethnicity. For trend tests, the cumulative SDoH score (0–8) was modeled as a continuous linear term (P for trend). For categorical analyses, each score category was compared with the reference group. Sex-by-SDoH interaction P-values (P for interaction) were obtained by adding a sex × SDoH interaction term to the corresponding model. Sensitivity analyses evaluated associations between individual SDoH indicators and CVD across the corresponding subitems. We also assessed associations between the cumulative adverse SDoH score and CVD within each of the five SDoH domains. Following prior studies, we additionally fit unweighted logistic regression models as a sensitivity analysis. In an additional model (Model 2), we further adjusted for survey cycle, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, and other covariates. Analyses were conducted in R, and statistical significance was defined as a two-tailed P < 0.05 (Table 1).

thumbnail
Table 1. Survey-weighted characteristic variables of the study participants stratified by cardiovascular disease, U.S. NHANES 2005–2018 (n = 35,781).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344108.t001

3. Result

3.1 Baseline characteristics of study population

The final analytical cohort comprised 35,781 participants (17,358 men and 18,423 women) with available cardiovascular status. Overall, 4,055 participants (11.33%) reported a clinician diagnosis of CVD, and 31,716 (88.67%) did not. Participants with CVD were older and included a higher proportion of men, White participants, and unemployed individuals (all P < 0.001). In addition, lower income (PIR < 300%), lower educational attainment, lack of health insurance, housing instability, and not being married or living with a partner were more common among participants with CVD (all P < 0.001). Descriptively, the prevalence of CVD increased across higher categories of cumulative adverse SDoH. Supplementary Tables S2–S4 in S1 File present stratified demographic distributions by sex, race, and survey cycle. Except for marital status, which showed weak correlations with other indicators, most SDoH components were positively correlated. Government insurance was strongly correlated with low income (Fig 2).

thumbnail
Fig 2. Spearman correlations between eight Social Determinants of Health variables, U.S. NHANES 2005–2018.

Correlation strength was interpreted using absolute Spearman’s rho (|ρ|): < 0.10 negligible, 0.10–0.29 weak, 0.30–0.49 moderate, 0.50–0.69 strong, and ≥0.70 very strong. Positive values indicate direct correlations and negative values indicate inverse correlations.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344108.g002

3.2 Association of SDoH with risk of developing CVD

Table 2 illustrates the association between SDoH and risk of developing CVD, employing a multivariable-adjusted logistic regression model to evaluate both individual SDoH domains (eight components) and cumulative adverse SDoH exposure. After controlling for demographic covariates such as age and sex, several key factors showed statistically significant associations with elevated risk of developing CVD. Upon adjusting for variables including age and sex, several factors were identified as significantly associated with an increased likelihood of developing CVD. The factors included unemployment (AOR = 2.27, 95% CI: 2.01–2.57, P < 0.001), a poverty income ratio (PIR) below 300% (AOR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.25–1.58, P < 0.001), experiences of marginal, low, or very low food security (AOR = 1.51, 95% CI: 1.34–1.70, P < 0.001), and homelessness (AOR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.12–1.41, p < 0.001). Conversely, lack of health insurance coverage was inversely associated with self-reported, clinician-diagnosed CVD (AOR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.60–0.82, p < 0.001). The type of insurance was also found to have a significant association with CVD, with government or uninsured individuals showing a markedly increased risk (AOR = 1.38, 95% CI: 1.23–1.54, p < 0.001). Additionally, not being married or living with a partner was moderately associated with an elevated prevalence of CVD (AOR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.08–1.09, p < 0.001), while education levels below high school did not seem to represent a significant risk factor for CVD.

thumbnail
Table 2. Comparison between different survey-weighted logistic regression models of the weighted relationship between Social Determinants of Health and cardiovascular disease, U.S. NHANES 2005–2018 (n = 35,781).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344108.t002

Table 2 illustrates a positive correlation between the cumulative number of adverse SDoH and the prevalence of CVD. In the fully adjusted model, the highest level of cumulative adverse SDoH (≥6 adverse SDoH sub-items) had an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 5.35 (95% CI: 4.45–6.43) compared to the reference level (P < 0.001). A notable linear trend was observed, suggesting that the prevalence of CVD rises as the accumulation of adverse SDoH increases (P for trend < 0.0001).

As shown in Table 3, sex-stratified survey-weighted logistic regression models were used to provide sex-specific estimates. In several comparisons, adjusted odds ratios were numerically larger in women than in men (e.g., PIR < 300%: women AOR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.40–2.02 vs men AOR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.07–1.41; ≥ 6 adverse SDoH: women AOR = 7.33, 95% CI: 5.43–9.90 vs men AOR = 4.39, 95% CI: 3.37–5.74). However, formal sex-by-SDoH interaction tests were not statistically significant (all P for interaction > 0.05); therefore, differences in point estimates should be interpreted descriptively.

thumbnail
Table 3. Association between individual and cumulative social determinants of health (SDoH) and odds of cardiovascular disease in survey-weighted logistic regression models stratified by gender, U.S. NHANES 2005–2018 (n = 35,781).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0344108.t003

3.3 Sensitivity analysis

To evaluate robustness, we conducted several sensitivity analyses (Tables S7–S9 in S1 File). First, we re-estimated models using the original multi-level categories for each SDoH indicator rather than dichotomies; the direction and statistical significance of key indicators were similar to the primary analysis (Table S7 in S1 File). Second, we constructed domain-level cumulative scores aligned with the Healthy People 2030 framework; the economic stability domain showed the strongest association with prevalent CVD, whereas several non-economic domains were attenuated after mutual adjustment (Table S8 in S1 File). Third, based on Model 2, we additionally adjusted for survey cycle and a broader set of lifestyle and clinical covariates (BMI, smoking, drinking, physical activity, hypertension, diabetes, creatinine, HDL, and total cholesterol); the associations of unemployment, low income, and higher cumulative adverse SDoH with prevalent CVD persisted (Table S9 in S1 File). Finally, unweighted logistic regression models yielded comparable patterns, suggesting that the main conclusions were not driven by survey weighting.

4. Discussion

Adverse SDoH indicators were associated with higher odds of prevalent CVD, underscoring the importance of economic stability. Across all models, lower income, unemployment, and food insecurity showed consistent, independent associations with prevalent CVD. Individuals experiencing multiple adverse SDoH had higher odds of prevalent CVD, and sex-stratified estimates were numerically higher among women at higher cumulative SDoH levels. Although lifestyle-related factors such as cigarette smoking and obesity are established CVD prevalence factors [14,15], their interplay with SDoH may further exacerbate cardiovascular burden [16,17].Individuals with the poverty-to-income ratio (PIR) <300% and those who were unemployed had higher odds of prevalent CVD. Although the adjusted association for unemployment (Model 2: AOR = 2.27, 95% CI = 2.01–2.57) is statistically significant, its clinical and public health significance should be interpreted in the context of the baseline prevalence. In our sample, CVD prevalence was 11.33% overall and was higher among unemployed participants (1330/8291, 16.0%) than among employed, student, or retired participants (2725/27,490, 9.9%), corresponding to an absolute difference of approximately 6.1 percentage points. Because odds ratios can overstate prevalence ratios when outcomes are not rare, the AOR should not be interpreted as a direct doubling of absolute prevalence. Using a standard conversion for common outcomes, an AOR of 2.27 corresponds to an approximate prevalence ratio of ~2.0 when the baseline prevalence is ~ 10%. Nevertheless, a roughly two-fold relative difference and a > 6 percentage-point absolute difference suggest potential clinical relevance for targeting prevention resources, consistent with prior literature linking unemployment and job insecurity to coronary heart disease and cardiovascular burden [18,19]. In addition, established lifestyle-related CVD prevalence factors are modifiable and may partially mediate the association between SDoH and CVD. A recent NHANES-linked cohort analysis reported that behavioral and clinical risk factors mediated approximately one-third of the association between unfavorable SDoH and CVD mortality, suggesting that residual SDoH-related associations may persist beyond these factors [20].

Model progression in Table 2 showed substantial attenuation or reversals in direction for some estimates, most notably for insurance coverage. For example, being uninsured (vs insured) was associated with lower odds in the crude model (OR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.39–0.52), shifted above the null after adjustment for age, sex, and race/ethnicity (Model 1: AOR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.03–1.39), and shifted below the null again after mutual adjustment for the other SDoH indicators (Model 2: AOR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.60–0.82). Such changes are consistent with confounding and statistical suppression when correlated predictors are added; depending on the causal structure, mutual adjustment may also introduce overadjustment and/or reduce precision [21,22]. In addition, because CVD status in NHANES is based on self-reported clinician diagnosis, access to care may influence whether CVD is detected and subsequently reported. Prior NHANES analyses suggest that uninsured adults are more likely to have undiagnosed cardiometabolic conditions, supporting the interpretation that the crude “protective” association for uninsured status may reflect underdiagnosis or differential detection rather than truly lower disease prevalenc [18]. This pattern may also reflect differential outcome ascertainment: if underdiagnosis is more common among socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, positive associations between cumulative SDoH burden and self-reported CVD may be underestimated (biased toward the null). Conversely, access-related underdiagnosis may yield spuriously inverse associations for variables such as uninsured status, reflecting lower detection or awareness rather than true protection. Validation studies indicate that self-reported myocardial infarction and stroke have high specificity but imperfect sensitivity, and that agreement is higher among better-educated respondents, supporting potential differential misclassification by social position [23].

PIR is a key indicator of socioeconomic status, and multivariable models adjusted for age, sex, and race/ethnicity showed that PIR remained significantly associated with prevalent CVD [24,25]. Faselis et al. reported that community-dwelling older adults in the US without pre-existing cardiovascular conditions had a higher risk of incident cardiovascular events in low-income groups (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.03–1.31) [26]. A 17-year longitudinal cohort study further found that an income reduction of >50% was significantly associated with higher prevalence of CVD [27]. These observations are consistent with our findings and suggest that employment instability or unemployment may contribute to income loss and adverse changes in health behaviors, thereby increasing cardiovascular burden and prevalence of CVD [28].

Economically unstable, low-income populations face a higher risk of food insecurity due to budget constraints, which is associated with higher consumption of processed meats and sodium-rich foods and lower intake of fresh produce. Such dietary patterns are associated with a higher incidence of cardiometabolic diseases [29,30]. Compounding this issue, limited access to retailers offering nutrient-dense foods in low-income neighborhoods may undermine residents’ ability to maintain a balanced diet, thereby exacerbating CVD [31,32]. Even in affluent countries, low-income individuals continue to experience food shortages and unhealthy dietary patterns [33]. These unhealthy dietary patterns and associated food insecurity are linked to an increased prevalence of CVD [31,34,35]. Socioeconomic status (SES) is commonly used as an indicator of socioeconomic inequality within population [36]. Lower SES may function as a chronic stressor and is associated with inflammatory activation and atherosclerotic processes, which can contribute to cardiovascular events such as ischemic heart disease and heart failure [3739]. Longitudinal studies suggest that socioeconomic inequality is associated with prevalence of CVD through multiple pathways [40]. Workers with lower occupational stress have more favorable cardiovascular risk profiles than those exposed to multidimensional occupational stressors, including high task demands, low autonomy, and effort–reward imbalance related to compensation, employment stability, and professional recognition (relative risk (RR) = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.1–1.8) [41]. This association remained significant after excluding earlier follow-up observations, suggesting that reverse causation (i.e., pre-existing CVD influencing stress levels) is unlikely to fully explain the findings [42].

Economic instability in low-income populations may increase prevalence of CVD directly and may also exacerbate CVD burden indirectly through factors such as educational attainment and access to health care [10,24]. Among individuals with lower income and lower educational attainment, the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events is higher [43]. Individuals with higher educational attainment may have greater health literacy and adherence to medical advice, which may facilitate preventive behaviors such as smoking cessation and healthy eating [44,45]. Economic pressure that results in housing instability may lead to prolonged psychological stress and anxiety. Chronic stress may increase stress-hormone secretion (e.g., cortisol), which may contribute to prevalence of CVD through pathways including hypertension and atherosclerosis [46]. Housing-insecure populations may be more vulnerable to cardiovascular harm due to chronic exposure to environmental stressors, including temperature extremes and airborne particulate matter [47]. Residential instability may hinder sustained health-promoting behaviors, particularly regular meals and planned physical activity. Non-homeowners may also be more likely to engage in unhealthy behaviors such as smoking and alcohol use in the context of economic instability and high stress [48]. Greater community green-space coverage may mitigate the adverse effects of air pollution on cardiovascular health [49]. In contrast, lower social cohesion and higher crime rates in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods may increase prevalence of CVD [50,51]. Furthermore, chronic environmental noise exposure has been associated with systemic inflammation, oxidative stress biomarkers, and increased susceptibility to cardiovascular disease [52,53].

Access to health care, particularly insurance coverage, may influence the observed prevalence of self-reported, clinician-diagnosed CVD. Socioeconomically disadvantaged populations frequently face structural barriers to accessing medical services, which may increase CVD prevalence [10,54]. In rural areas, identifying and addressing barriers to health care access may reduce cardiovascular events and improve outcomes [55]. After implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), improvements in health coverage have been associated with fewer cardiovascular events in the US [56]. In Mexico, the Seguro Popular insurance program has been associated with higher treatment success and blood pressure control among covered patients than among uninsured patients (1.5-fold and 1.4-fold higher, respectively) [57]. Population-based studies in the US have reported that uninsured adults have higher cardiovascular risk profiles and poorer health outcomes [58]. Differences in cardiovascular outcomes by insurance type may reflect systemic variation in access to care and service quality. People with public insurance may have adequate primary care use but face barriers to specialty care and advanced treatments [57,59]. Patients with commercial insurance may have better access to newer antihypertensive medications and cardiovascular procedures, whereas those with public insurance may rely more on basic medications [60]. Furthermore, individuals with commercial or more comprehensive insurance may be more likely to receive preventive screening (e.g., blood pressure monitoring and cholesterol testing), which may contribute to better cardiovascular outcomes [61].

The inverse association for uninsured status warrants cautious interpretation. Because prevalent CVD in NHANES is based on self-reported clinician diagnosis, uninsured individuals may have fewer health care encounters and therefore lower detection and reporting, resulting in an apparently lower prevalence due to ascertainment bias. Prior studies have linked insurance coverage to preventive service use and CVD-related care utilization, and coverage expansions have been associated with improved access among adults with CVD or cardiovascular risk factors. Reverse causation and residual confounding may also contribute to this pattern.

Marital status showed limited independent associations with prevalent CVD, which may reflect the binary SDoH definition that combines heterogeneous groups. Prior evidence suggests that marital status is associated with CVD through complex, sex-dependent pathways involving social support, health behaviors, psychosocial stress, and metabolic regulation, with stronger associations reported among men [62,63]. Adjustment for correlated socioeconomic factors and access to care may further attenuate its independent association.

We observed a dose–response relationship between the cumulative count of adverse SDoH and prevalent CVD. Similar cumulative patterns have been reported in NHANES analyses using the Healthy People 2030 SDoH framework. For example, a recent cross-sectional study found that each additional adverse SDoH was associated with higher odds of premature ASCVD and reported suggestive sex differences [64].

Several pathways have been proposed to link cumulative social adversity to cardiovascular risk, including changes in health behaviors, reduced access to preventive care, and stress-related neuroendocrine or autonomic dysregulation and inflammatory activation [65]. One conceptual framework is allostatic load, defined as physiologic “wear and tear” from repeated or chronic stress exposure, which has been associated with incident CVD in prior studies [66]. However, because our analysis did not include biomarkers or longitudinal measures, these mechanistic explanations should be considered hypotheses rather than direct inferences from our data. Future studies that integrate biomarker panels and longitudinal measures are needed to test these pathways.

Sex-stratified analyses were presented to provide clinically interpretable, sex-specific estimates given the a priori relevance of sex differences in cardiovascular epidemiology. In our analyses, the association between cumulative SDoH burden and prevalent CVD appeared larger in women than in men; however, sex-by-SDoH interaction tests were not statistically significant [67]. Therefore, these sex differences should be interpreted as descriptive and exploratory. Individuals who experience long working hours and excessive work-related stress are at a notably higher risk for conditions such as stroke and atrial fibrillation [42,56,68]. Furthermore, chronic stress may contribute to autonomic imbalance, which has been linked to myocardial ischemia and arrhythmias [69,70]. Nevertheless, sex- and gender-related pathways may contribute to heterogeneity in these associations. For example, women more often assume unpaid caregiving roles and experience time poverty, which can constrain opportunities for healthy behaviors [71]. Such caregiving obligations may compromise nutritional intake through preferential selection of calorie-dense, economically constrained food options, establishing dietary patterns that could adversely affect cardiometabolic health [72]. From a pathophysiological perspective, chronic stress exposure in women appears to attenuate estrogen-mediated modulation of the HPA axis, resulting in more pronounced cortisol elevation compared to their male counterparts [73]. Concurrently, this hypercortisolemic state synergizes with IL-6 secretion to accelerate endothelial dysfunction via oxidative stress pathways and nitric oxide bioavailability reduction [74]. However, these biological pathways remain speculative in the context of our data and should be evaluated in future mechanistic studies.

Our findings indicate that cumulative social disadvantages, including unemployment, low income, and housing instability, are associated with a higher prevalence of CVD. These associations underscore that cardiovascular health is closely linked to social conditions and the distribution of resources. From a public health perspective, the strongest associations observed for economic instability point to actionable policy and clinical levers. Evidence from US health policy suggests that expanding insurance coverage is associated with improved access to care and more favorable cardiovascular outcomes among low-income adults [75]. Nutrition-support strategies that reduce food insecurity, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), have been linked to improved cardiometabolic risk profiles among food-insecure adults [76]. Income-support policies have also been associated with improved food security and selected cardiovascular risk factors [77]. In parallel, housing-stability interventions are increasingly recognized as relevant to cardiovascular health and may help mitigate stress-related pathways [78]. In health care settings, routine screening for social needs and referral to community resources may complement these upstream strategies. Beyond biological sex, gendered social conditions such as unpaid caregiving and time poverty may constrain opportunities for healthy behaviors and timely health care. Caregiving intensity has been linked to higher CVD risk in longitudinal studies and reviews [79,80]. Because these data reflect a pre-COVID-19 context (NHANES 2005–2018), the public-health implications should be framed as prioritizing SDoH domains and populations for contemporary evaluation rather than as evidence that specific policies will achieve comparable effects today, and the magnitude of associations should not be assumed to generalize to post-pandemic populations.

This study used nationally representative NHANES data spanning 2005–2018 (14 years). We examined five SDoH domains—economic stability, education, access to health care, community environment, and social support—and found that both individual and cumulative SDoH were associated with prevalent CVD. The cumulative SDoH score showed a dose–response association with the odds of prevalent CVD. Sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the main findings. Although sex-stratified estimates were numerically higher among women at higher cumulative SDoH levels, interaction tests were not statistically significant; therefore, these differences should be interpreted cautiously. Taken together, these findings suggest that interventions addressing multiple social disadvantages may help inform policies aimed at improving health equity. Several limitations should be noted. First, the cross-sectional design precludes establishing temporality; adverse SDoH may precede CVD, but CVD may also contribute to income loss, unemployment, or insurance disruption. Second, SDoH indicators and CVD status were self-reported, introducing potential recall and social-desirability bias. In NHANES, CVD is based on self-reported clinician diagnosis without adjudication, allowing underreporting and misclassification; prior work also suggests that barriers to awareness and communication may further affect reporting. NHANES does not capture all upstream contextual determinants; therefore, residual confounding may persist. Insurance status and self-reported clinician diagnoses are also vulnerable to access-related ascertainment bias; thus, the inverse association for uninsured status may reflect differential detection and reverse causation rather than a lower disease burden. Third, pooled NHANES cycles from 2005–2018 represent a pre–COVID-19 context; pandemic-related disruptions and policy responses likely altered key SDoH distributions and their associations with cardiovascular health [81,82]. Finally, we lacked direct measurements of stress hormones, inflammatory markers, or vascular function. Future studies should integrate longitudinal designs with biomarker assessments to clarify mechanistic pathways.

5. Conclusions

This study found that adverse individual SDoH indicators and higher cumulative SDoH burden were associated with higher odds of prevalent CVD. Sex-stratified estimates suggested larger point estimates in women at higher cumulative SDoH levels; however, sex-by-SDoH interaction tests were not statistically significant. These findings emphasize the importance of integrating SDoH with the prevention and treatment of CVD, providing new perspectives and directions.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the participants and staff of the NHANES database for their invaluable contributions.

References

  1. 1. GBD 2017 Mortality Collaborators. Global, regional, and national age-sex-specific mortality for 282 causes of death in 195 countries and territories, 1980-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1736–88.
  2. 2. Martin SS, Aday AW, Almarzooq ZI. 2024 heart disease and stroke statistics: a report of US and global data from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2024;149(8):e347–913.
  3. 3. Burden of disease scenarios for 204 countries and territories, 2022-2050: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2024;403(10440):2204–56.
  4. 4. Marmot M, Friel S, Bell R, Houweling TAJ, Taylor S, Commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health. Lancet. 2008;372(9650):1661–9. pmid:18994664
  5. 5. Gómez CA, Kleinman DV, Pronk N. Addressing health equity and social determinants of health through Healthy People 2030. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2021;27(Suppl 6):S249–57.
  6. 6. Powell-Wiley TM, Baumer Y, Baah FO, Baez AS, Farmer N, Mahlobo CT, et al. Social determinants of cardiovascular disease. Circ Res. 2022;130(5):782–99. pmid:35239404
  7. 7. Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365(9464):1099–104. pmid:15781105
  8. 8. Javed Z, Valero-Elizondo J, Cainzos-Achirica M, Sharma G, Mossialos E, Parekh T, et al. Race, social determinants of health, and risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in the United States. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2024;11(2):853–64. pmid:37017921
  9. 9. Zhang Z, Jackson SL, Thompson-Paul AM, Yin X, Merritt RK, Coronado F. Associations between health-related social needs and cardiovascular health among US adults. J Am Heart Assoc. 2024;13(23):e035863. pmid:39575749
  10. 10. Schultz WM, Kelli HM, Lisko JC, et al. Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular outcomes: challenges and interventions. Circulation. 2018;137(20):2166–78.
  11. 11. Ozieh MN, Garacci E, Walker RJ, Palatnik A, Egede LE. The cumulative impact of social determinants of health factors on mortality in adults with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. BMC Nephrol. 2021;22(1):76. pmid:33639878
  12. 12. Caleyachetty R, Echouffo-Tcheugui JB, Muennig P, Zhu W, Muntner P, Shimbo D. Association between cumulative social risk and ideal cardiovascular health in US adults: NHANES 1999-2006. Int J Cardiol. 2015;191:296–300. pmid:25984898
  13. 13. Evans GW, Li D, Whipple SS. Cumulative risk and child development. Psychol Bull. 2013;139(6):1342–96. pmid:23566018
  14. 14. Yusuf S, Joseph P, Rangarajan S, Islam S, Mente A, Hystad P, et al. Modifiable risk factors, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in 155 722 individuals from 21 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries (PURE): a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395(10226):795–808. pmid:31492503
  15. 15. Zhang Y-B, Pan X-F, Chen J, Cao A, Xia L, Zhang Y, et al. Combined lifestyle factors, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2021;75(1):92–9. pmid:32892156
  16. 16. Braveman P, Gottlieb L. The social determinants of health: it’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Rep. 2014;129 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):19–31. pmid:24385661
  17. 17. Santangelo G, Moscardelli S, Simeoli PS, Guazzi M, Faggiano P. Management of dyslipidemia in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: the gap between theory and practice. J Clin Med. 2022;11(15):4608. pmid:35956223
  18. 18. Ayanian JZ, Zaslavsky AM, Weissman JS, Schneider EC, Ginsburg JA. Undiagnosed hypertension and hypercholesterolemia among uninsured and insured adults in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(12):2051–4. pmid:14652333
  19. 19. Virtanen M, Nyberg ST, Batty GD, Jokela M, Heikkilä K, Fransson EI, et al. Perceived job insecurity as a risk factor for incident coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2013;347:f4746. pmid:23929894
  20. 20. He WJ, Geng S, Tian L, Hu FB. Mediating effect of established risk factors on association between social determinants and cardiovascular disease mortality. JACC Adv. 2025;4(6 Pt 2):101744. pmid:40338757
  21. 21. Schisterman EF, Cole SR, Platt RW. Overadjustment bias and unnecessary adjustment in epidemiologic studies. Epidemiology. 2009;20(4):488–95. pmid:19525685
  22. 22. MacKinnon DP, Krull JL, Lockwood CM. Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prev Sci. 2000;1(4):173–81. pmid:11523746
  23. 23. Okura Y, Urban LH, Mahoney DW, Jacobsen SJ, Rodeheffer RJ. Agreement between self-report questionnaires and medical record data was substantial for diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction and stroke but not for heart failure. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(10):1096–103. pmid:15528061
  24. 24. de Mestral C, Stringhini S. Socioeconomic status and cardiovascular disease: an update. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2017;19(11):115. pmid:28965316
  25. 25. Kimenai DM, Pirondini L, Gregson J, Prieto D, Pocock SJ, Perel P, et al. Socioeconomic deprivation: an important, largely unrecognized risk factor in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2022;146(3):240–8. pmid:35748241
  26. 26. Faselis C, Safren L, Allman RM, Lam PH, Brar V, Morgan CJ, et al. Income disparity and incident cardiovascular disease in older Americans. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2022;71:92–9. pmid:34320387
  27. 27. Wang SY, Tan ASL, Claggett B, Chandra A, Khatana SAM, Lutsey PL, et al. Longitudinal associations between income changes and incident cardiovascular disease: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4(12):1203–12. pmid:31596441
  28. 28. Rosengren A, Smyth A, Rangarajan S, Ramasundarahettige C, Bangdiwala SI, AlHabib KF, et al. Socioeconomic status and risk of cardiovascular disease in 20 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiologic (PURE) study. Lancet Glob Health. 2019;7(6):e748–60. pmid:31028013
  29. 29. Micha R, Peñalvo JL, Cudhea F, Imamura F, Rehm CD, Mozaffarian D. Association between dietary factors and mortality from heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes in the United States. JAMA. 2017;317(9):912–24. pmid:28267855
  30. 30. Liu Y, Eicher-Miller HA. Food insecurity and cardiovascular disease risk. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2021;23(6):24.
  31. 31. Peiris D, Ghosh A, Manne-Goehler J, Jaacks LM, Theilmann M, Marcus ME, et al. Cardiovascular disease risk profile and management practices in 45 low-income and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study of nationally representative individual-level survey data. PLoS Med. 2021;18(3):e1003485. pmid:33661979
  32. 32. Haynes-Maslow L, Parsons SE, Wheeler SB, Leone LA. A qualitative study of perceived barriers to fruit and vegetable consumption among low-income populations, North Carolina, 2011. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E34. pmid:23489639
  33. 33. Mullie P, Clarys P, Hulens M, Vansant G. Dietary patterns and socioeconomic position. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2010;64(3):231–8. pmid:20087378
  34. 34. Psaltopoulou T, Hatzis G, Papageorgiou N, Androulakis E, Briasoulis A, Tousoulis D. Socioeconomic status and risk factors for cardiovascular disease: impact of dietary mediators. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2017;58(1):32–42. pmid:28161284
  35. 35. Ziso D, Chun OK, Puglisi MJ. Increasing access to healthy foods through improving food environment: a review of mixed methods intervention studies with residents of low-income communities. Nutrients. 2022;14(11):2278. pmid:35684077
  36. 36. Reducing social inequalities in cancer: evidence and priorities for research. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2019.
  37. 37. Steptoe A, Kivimäki M. Stress and cardiovascular disease: an update on current knowledge. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:337–54. pmid:23297662
  38. 38. Tawakol A, Osborne MT, Wang Y, Hammed B, Tung B, Patrich T, et al. Stress-associated neurobiological pathway linking socioeconomic disparities to cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(25):3243–55. pmid:31248544
  39. 39. Miller GE, Chen E, Shimbo D. Mechanistic understanding of socioeconomic disparities in cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;73(25):3256–8. pmid:31248545
  40. 40. Baruwa OJ, Alberti F, Onagbiye S, Guddemi A, Odone A, Ricci H, et al. Are socio-economic inequalities related to cardiovascular disease risk? A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2024;24(1):685. pmid:39604897
  41. 41. Dragano N, Siegrist J, Nyberg ST. Effort-reward imbalance at work and incident coronary heart disease: a multicohort study of 90,164 individuals. Epidemiology. 2017;28(4):619–26.
  42. 42. Kivimäki M, Nyberg ST, Batty GD, Fransson EI, Heikkilä K, Alfredsson L, et al. Job strain as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet. 2012;380(9852):1491–7. pmid:22981903
  43. 43. Tremblay JO, Nahodyl L, Mesa RA, Vilchez L, Elfassy T. Low income and education are associated with greater ASCVD risk scores among adults in the US. Prev Med Rep. 2024;41:102720. pmid:38623580
  44. 44. Braveman P, Egerter S, Williams DR. The social determinants of health: coming of age. Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32:381–98. pmid:21091195
  45. 45. Magnani JW, Mujahid MS, Aronow HD, Cené CW, Dickson VV, Havranek E, et al. Health literacy and cardiovascular disease: fundamental relevance to primary and secondary prevention: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2018;138(2):e48–74. pmid:29866648
  46. 46. Mensah GA, Mokdad AH, Ford ES, Greenlund KJ, Croft JB. State of disparities in cardiovascular health in the United States. Circulation. 2005;111(10):1233–41. pmid:15769763
  47. 47. Mannoh I, Hussien M, Commodore-Mensah Y, Michos ED. Impact of social determinants of health on cardiovascular disease prevention. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2021;36(5):572–9. pmid:34397464
  48. 48. Sacco RL, Roth GA, Reddy KS, Arnett DK, Bonita R, Gaziano TA, et al. The heart of 25 by 25: achieving the goal of reducing global and regional premature deaths from cardiovascular diseases and stroke: a modeling study from the American Heart Association and World Heart Federation. Circulation. 2016;133(23):e674-90. pmid:27162236
  49. 49. Yitshak-Sade M, James P, Kloog I, Hart JE, Schwartz JD, Laden F, et al. Neighborhood greenness attenuates the adverse effect of PM2.5 on cardiovascular mortality in neighborhoods of lower socioeconomic status. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(5):814. pmid:30845676
  50. 50. Liu J, Luo Y, Haller W, Vander Mey B, Granberg E. Neighborhood environments and self-rated health in Mainland China, Japan and South Korea. PLoS One. 2018;13(9):e0204910. pmid:30261047
  51. 51. Silfee VJ, Rosal MC, Sreedhara M, Lora V, Lemon SC. Neighborhood environment correlates of physical activity and sedentary behavior among Latino adults in Massachusetts. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):966. pmid:27619205
  52. 52. Osborne MT, Shin LM, Mehta NN, Pitman RK, Fayad ZA, Tawakol A. Disentangling the links between psychosocial stress and cardiovascular disease. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020;13(8):e010931. pmid:32791843
  53. 53. Münzel T, Schmidt FP, Steven S, Herzog J, Daiber A, Sørensen M. Environmental noise and the cardiovascular system. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(6):688–97. pmid:29420965
  54. 54. McNeill E, Lindenfeld Z, Mostafa L, Zein D, Silver D, Pagán J, et al. Uses of social determinants of health data to address cardiovascular disease and health equity: a scoping review. J Am Heart Assoc. 2023;12(21):e030571. pmid:37929716
  55. 55. Diez Roux AV, Mujahid MS, Hirsch JA, Moore K, Moore LV. The impact of neighborhoods on CV risk. Glob Heart. 2016;11(3):353–63. pmid:27741982
  56. 56. Akhabue E, Pool LR, Yancy CW, Greenland P, Lloyd-Jones D. Association of state medicaid expansion with rate of uninsured hospitalizations for major cardiovascular events, 2009-2014. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(4):e181296. pmid:30646120
  57. 57. Oseran AS, Sun T, Wadhera RK. Health care access and management of cardiovascular risk factors among working-age adults with low income by state medicaid expansion status. JAMA Cardiol. 2022;7(7):708–14. pmid:35648424
  58. 58. McClurkin MA, Yingling LR, Ayers C, Cooper-McCann R, Suresh V, Nothwehr A, et al. Health insurance status as a barrier to ideal cardiovascular health for U.S. adults: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). PLoS One. 2015;10(11):e0141534. pmid:26535890
  59. 59. Van Spall HGC, Rahman T, Mytton O, Ramasundarahettige C, Ibrahim Q, Kabali C, et al. Comparative effectiveness of transitional care services in patients discharged from the hospital with heart failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017;19(11):1427–43. pmid:28233442
  60. 60. Sidney S, Sorel ME, Quesenberry CP, Jaffe MG, Solomon MD, Nguyen-Huynh MN, et al. Comparative trends in heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality in the United States and a large integrated healthcare delivery system. Am J Med. 2018;131(7):829-836.e1. pmid:29625083
  61. 61. Rivera-Hernandez M, Galarraga O. Type of insurance and use of preventive health services among older adults in Mexico. J Aging Health. 2015;27(6):962–82. pmid:25804897
  62. 62. Molloy GJ, Stamatakis E, Randall G, Hamer M. Marital status, gender and cardiovascular mortality: behavioural, psychological distress and metabolic explanations. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(2):223–8. pmid:19501442
  63. 63. Manfredini R, De Giorgi A, Tiseo R, Boari B, Cappadona R, Salmi R, et al. Marital status, cardiovascular diseases, and cardiovascular risk factors: a review of the evidence. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017;26(6):624–32. pmid:28128671
  64. 64. Yang C, Zhang N, Gao T, Zhu Y, Gong C, Xu M, et al. Association between social determinants of health and premature atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and sex differences in US adults: a cross-sectional study. Prev Med Rep. 2025;50:102967. pmid:39897737
  65. 65. Ebong IA, Quesada O, Fonkoue IT, Mattina D, Sullivan S, Oliveira GMM de, et al. The role of psychosocial stress on cardiovascular disease in women: JACC State-of-the-Art review. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;84(3):298–314. pmid:38986672
  66. 66. Evans E, Jacobs M, Fuller D, Hegland K, Ellis C. Allostatic load and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2025;68(6):1072–9. pmid:40054704
  67. 67. Knol MJ, VanderWeele TJ. Recommendations for presenting analyses of effect modification and interaction. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(2):514–20. pmid:22253321
  68. 68. Torén K, Schiöler L, Söderberg M, Giang KW, Rosengren A. The association between job strain and atrial fibrillation in Swedish men. Occup Environ Med. 2015;72(3):177–80. pmid:25523937
  69. 69. Howard-Quijano K, Takamiya T, Dale EA, Kipke J, Kubo Y, Grogan T, et al. Spinal cord stimulation reduces ventricular arrhythmias during acute ischemia by attenuation of regional myocardial excitability. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2017;313(2):H421–31. pmid:28576833
  70. 70. Guan Y, Gao L, Ma H-J, Li Q, Zhang H, Yuan F, et al. Chronic intermittent hypobaric hypoxia decreases beta-adrenoceptor activity in right ventricular papillary muscle. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2010;298(4):H1267-72. pmid:20097768
  71. 71. McEwen LN, Kim C, Ettner SL, Herman WH, Karter AJ, Beckles GL, et al. Competing demands for time and self-care behaviors, processes of care, and intermediate outcomes among people with diabetes: Translating Research Into Action for Diabetes (TRIAD). Diabetes Care. 2011;34(5):1180–2. pmid:21464464
  72. 72. Meese KA, Boitet LM, Sweeney KL, Nassetta L, Mugavero M, Hidalgo B, et al. Still exhausted: the role of residual caregiving fatigue on women in medicine and science across the pipeline. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e47629. pmid:37314842
  73. 73. Kajantie E, Phillips DIW. The effects of sex and hormonal status on the physiological response to acute psychosocial stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2006;31(2):151–78. pmid:16139959
  74. 74. Penninx BWJH, Kritchevsky SB, Yaffe K, Newman AB, Simonsick EM, Rubin S, et al. Inflammatory markers and depressed mood in older persons: results from the Health, Aging and Body Composition study. Biol Psychiatry. 2003;54(5):566–72. pmid:12946885
  75. 75. Khatana SAM, Bhatla A, Nathan AS, Giri J, Shen C, Kazi DS, et al. Association of medicaid expansion with cardiovascular mortality. JAMA Cardiol. 2019;4(7):671–9. pmid:31166575
  76. 76. Sharedalal P, Shah N, Sreenivasan J, et al. Trends in 10-year predicted risk of cardiovascular disease associated with food insecurity, 2007-2016. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022;9:851984.
  77. 77. Rehkopf DH, Strully KW, Dow WH. The short-term impacts of Earned Income Tax Credit disbursement on health. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(6):1884–94. pmid:25172139
  78. 78. Sims M, Kershaw KN, Breathett K, Jackson EA, Lewis LM, Mujahid MS, et al. Importance of housing and cardiovascular health and well-being: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020;13(8):e000089. pmid:32673512
  79. 79. Lambrias A, Ervin J, Taouk Y, King T. A systematic review comparing cardiovascular disease among informal carers and non-carers. Int J Cardiol Cardiovasc Risk Prev. 2023;16:200174. pmid:36874047
  80. 80. Hyde E, Greene ME, Darmstadt GL. Time poverty: obstacle to women’s human rights, health and sustainable development. J Glob Health. 2020;10(2):020313. pmid:33282212
  81. 81. Russo RG, Li Y, Ðoàn LN. COVID-19, social determinants of health, and opportunities for preventing cardiovascular disease: a conceptual framework. J Am Heart Assoc. 2021;10(24):e22721.
  82. 82. Nguyen OT, Lee J, Tabriz AA, Hong Y-R, Al Jumayli M, Reblin M, et al. Evaluation of employment loss and financial hardship among US adults with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e233364. pmid:36929405