Matters of the Heart and Mind: Interpersonal Violence and Cardiovascular Disease in Women
2020; Wiley; Volume: 9; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1161/jaha.120.015479
ISSN2047-9980
AutoresRola El‐Serag, Rebecca C. Thurston,
Tópico(s)Elder Abuse and Neglect
ResumoHomeJournal of the American Heart AssociationVol. 9, No. 4Matters of the Heart and Mind: Interpersonal Violence and Cardiovascular Disease in Women Open AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toOpen AccessEditorialPDF/EPUBMatters of the Heart and Mind: Interpersonal Violence and Cardiovascular Disease in Women Rola El‐Serag, MD and Rebecca C. Thurston, PhD Rola El‐SeragRola El‐Serag *Correspondence to: Rola El‐Serag, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77030. E‐mail: E-mail Address: [email protected] Department of Medicine, , Baylor College of Medicine, , Houston, , TX and Rebecca C. ThurstonRebecca C. Thurston Departments of Psychiatry, Epidemiology, and Clinical and Translational Science, , University of Pittsburgh, , PA Originally published17 Feb 2020https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.015479Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020;9:e015479This article is a commentary on the followingRisk of Cardiometabolic Disease and All‐Cause Mortality in Female Survivors of Domestic AbuseWhile violence against women has existed throughout human history, there is a growing recognition that this global crisis not only undermines the dignity, safety, and human rights of women but is also a major public health threat. Similarly, cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been recognized as one of the most important public health issues, accounting for one third of all deaths in women.1 Growing evidence, including the work by Chandan et al2 in the current issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) suggests that intimate partner violence (IPV) might increase the risk of CVD. While disparities that disfavor women persist with respect to CVD diagnosis, risk stratification, management, and outcomes, recognizing nontraditional CVD risk factors is an important opportunity to improve healthcare quality in women. Furthermore, the identification of IPV, a major global health threat affecting >30% of women,3 as a risk factor for CVD has widespread implications with potential to impact healthcare delivery and public policy.IPV is defined as physical or sexual violence, emotional abuse, and stalking. In the United States, >30% of women have experienced contact physical or sexual IPV; 25% of women have experienced IPV severe enough that it resulted in injury, the need for medical care, or posttraumatic stress symptoms.4 Approximately one third of men also experience IPV, although at a lower severity than women (ie, less often associated with injury/need for medical care).5 Although IPV typically begins early in life, with its occurrence highest among adolescent and young‐adult women,6 it impacts women of all ages. Globally, IPV is the leading cause of homicide death for women.7 IPV has a well‐documented adverse impact on mental and physical health in women. Women who have experienced IPV are at increased risk of multiple mental health conditions (eg, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, and substance abuse) as well as physical health (eg, chronic pain, gastrointestinal problems, sexually transmitted infections, traumatic brain injury).8, 9 IPV victimization is linked to CVD risk factors such as diabetes mellitus and hypertension in women10, 11 and possibly also in men when severe and/or when he is also the perpetrator of violence.12, 13 Furthermore, as demonstrated in the publication by Chandan et al,2 IPV in women may also be associated with clinical CVD.CVD is the leading cause of death in women worldwide. In the United States, CVD accounted for 299,578 deaths in women in 2017, about 1 in every 5 female deaths.14 Although CVD mortality in women has declined over the past 30 years, this decline has recently plateaued, with an alarming increase in CVD mortality in women under age 55 years.15 Furthermore, CVD is the second highest cause of disability‐adjusted life years lost in women around the globe.16 Significant healthcare disparities and gaps persist in the care and outcomes of women. Women are less likely to receive an early diagnosis of CVD than their male counterparts and less likely to receive appropriate, timely interventions.1, 17 Women have worse outcomes than men after acute coronary syndromes such as higher mortality rates in younger women and higher postintervention complications.18, 19The cause of these sex and gender‐related disparities in CVD includes delayed onset and atypical presentations of CVD in women, nontraditional gender‐specific risk factors, unconscious gender bias, and underrepresentation of women in CVD trials. Approximately 56% of women do not know their CVD risk nor appreciate its significance. This lack of awareness is more profound among women in higher‐risk groups, such as racial and ethnic minorities.20 Furthermore, healthcare providers continue to utilize traditional approaches to assess and manage CVD in women, which may underestimate CVD risk and miss global factors (such as IPV), likely affecting their entire spectrum of care. Thus, CVD in women remains a global burden, underscoring the importance of a more comprehensive understanding of its cause and risk factors in women.The present investigation by Chandan et al tested the association of IPV (termed domestic abuse) with the risk of CVD.2 They conducted a retrospective cohort study of women in a cohort of 18 547 women from a UK primary care registry. IPV and CVD information was extracted for these women from electronic medical records. Cases and controls were matched on variables including socioeconomic status, age, body mass index, and smoking. Participants were on average 37 years of age, with an average of 3 and 2.2 years of follow‐up among the unexposed and in the IPV‐exposed group, respectively. Despite matching, women who had a history of IPV more often had excessive drinking, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, lipid‐lowering use, and comorbidities than women without a history of IPV. Furthermore, IPV was associated with a 31% increased risk for later CVD (with strongest effects for ischemic heart disease at 50% increased risk), a 51% increased risk for diabetes mellitus, and a 44% increased risk for total mortality.Study strengths include its large sample size, matching, and medical‐record‐documented CVD outcomes. Weaknesses include its assessment of IPV, which was derived from medical records. The low rate of screening and detection of IPV in medical settings is well documented.21 It is unclear whether the providers were required to screen for IPV or which coding system was implemented for IPV. It is likely, as the authors acknowledge, that only the most severe cases of physical IPV were detected here. Furthermore, IPV is not only physical: emotional IPV is common, severe, and in some studies, the form of IPV most related to disease risk.22 Other limitations include the possible confounding effect of excessive alcohol drinking, more common in IPV‐exposed women but not accounted for in analyses. Finally, the cohort was young and the follow‐up time was limited for the detection of clinical CVD in women. Thus, the present study is based upon early or premature disease. Lastly, the study did not examine possible mechanistic explanations for the observed association.The limitations of the study do not undermine its impact, but rather point to the importance of ongoing study of the impact of IPV on CVD risk in women. Important next steps include longitudinal cohort studies with rigorously assessed IPV via validated instruments. Follow‐up into the ages in which women (seventh decade and beyond) typically develop clinical CVD is needed. Next steps should include investigation of the mechanisms underlying associations between IPV and CVD, which may include health and healthcare behaviors (eg, addictive behaviors, eating habits, sedentary behavior, disrupted sleep, adherence, and follow‐up); psychological and economic factors linked to CVD risk (eg, psychological disorders, low socioeconomic attainment),23 and direct biological mechanisms (eg, alterations in the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, autonomic nervous system, chronic inflammation, epigenetic changes, and endothelial dysfunction).24The association of 2 highly pervasive conditions in women, IPV and CVD, highlight an important opportunity to tackle these major public health issues, which often begins in the healthcare setting. However, in a national survey on IPV and sexual violence, only 21% of women disclosed their victimization to a doctor or nurse.25 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations support routine screening of all women for IPV and point to standardized instruments to do so.25, 26 In fact, there are several brief, well‐validated screening tools for use in healthcare settings; optimal assessments address the multiple domains of IPV (physical, sexual, and emotional/psychological). The Table describes select screening tests recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force, selected based on sensitivity, specificity, and facility of use in clinical settings.4 Note that these scales have been validated for use in women, but their performance in men has not been established. Providers should be aware that IPV victims may not disclose their IPV immediately: a trusting relationship and multiple queries may be required before an individual discloses. Some research indicates a potential beneficial effect of screening alone for women experiencing IPV, yet full benefit is derived when screening is conducted in conjunction with intervention and ongoing follow‐up.27 Best‐practices for IPV screening and intervention include training staff and providers in effective interpersonal violence assessment, educating all patients in IPV regardless of disclosure, and clear protocols in the event of a disclosure (eg, proper documentation, treatment, referrals to psychological, community, and legal services, and ongoing follow‐up).28 Providers should be aware of local laws surrounding mandatory reporting of IPV and disclose the limits of confidentiality. An on‐site multidisciplinary team approach to care that includes social services and behavioral health providers can help address the multiple sequelae of IPV.Table 1. Screening Tools for IPV in WomenScreening ToolQuestionsScoringHumiliation, Afraid, Rape, Kick (HARK)Within the past year have you been: Humiliated or emotionally abused by a partner or ex‐partner?Afraid of your partner or ex‐partner?Raped or forced to have any sexual activity by your partner or ex‐partner?Kicked, hit, slapped, or physically hurt by your partner or ex‐partner?Yes/no responsesOne point for every yes response, items summedPositive for IPV ≥1Extended–Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream (E‐HITS)Over the last 12 months, how often did your partner: Physically hurt you?Insult your or talk down to you?Threaten you with harm?Scream or curse at you?Force you to have sexual activities?Answers based on a 5‐point Likert scale:1=never2=rarely3=sometimes4=fairly often5=frequentlyLikert scores summed across itemsPositive for IPV: ≥7Partner Violence Screen (PVS)Within the past year: Have you been hit, kicked, punched, or otherwise hurt by someone in the past year? If so, by whom?Do you feel safe in your current relationship?Is there a partner from a previous relationship who is making you feel unsafe now?Yes/no responsesOne point for every yes response, items summedPositive for IPV: ≥1IPV indicates Intimate Partner Violence.Prevention of IPV is also paramount. Recent global efforts recognize the significant burden of gender‐based violence. The United Nations adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, a list of goals that provide a framework for economic, social, and environmental development around the world. One key goal identifies violence against women as a key priority in achieving gender equality around the world. Gender violence is viewed as preventable and an essential component in global advancement. Similarly, the US State Department has identified gender violence as a key priority in its commitment to advancing gender equality around the globe and has developed strategic objectives to do so. These policy efforts represent a critical component of reducing violence against women.The study by Chandan et al provides an important opportunity for the scientific community to shift its paradigm from traditional assumptions and models of CVD that place women at a disadvantage to a more comprehensive approach in order to reduce barriers and improve healthcare quality in women. As the impact of trauma and violence on chronic disease risk is increasingly documented, the time has come to consider a more expansive approach that considers the complex role of biological, social, and psychosocial stressors on the health and wellness of women. Only then can we improve existing public health policies and healthcare practices at a global level to improve the lives of millions of women around the world.DisclosuresNone.Footnotes*Correspondence to: Rola El‐Serag, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, 2002 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, Texas 77030. E‐mail: [email protected]eduThe opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the editors or of the American Heart Association.References1 Madonis SM, Skelding KA, Roberts M. Management of acute coronary syndromes: special considerations in women. Heart. 2017; 103:1638–1646.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2 Chandan JS, Thomas T, Bradbury‐Jones C, Taylor J, Bandyopadhyay S, Nirantharakumar K. Risk of cardiometabolic disease and all‐cause mortality in female survivors of domestic abuse. J Am Heart Assoc. 2020; 9:e014580. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.014580.LinkGoogle Scholar3 World Health Organization . Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non‐partner sexual violence. World Health Organization. 2013. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/85239. Accessed December 22, 2019.Google Scholar4 Smith SG, Chen J, Basile KC, Gilbert LK, Merrick MT, Patel N, Walling M, Jain A. The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NSIVS): 2010–2012 state report. 2017.Google Scholar5 US Preventive Services Task Force . Screening for intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Final Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018; 320:1678–1687.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6 Breiding MJ CJ, Black MC. Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2014.Google Scholar7 Devries KM, Mak JYT, García‐Moreno C, Petzold M, Child JC, Falder G, Lim S, Bacchus LJ, Engell RE, Rosenfeld L, Pallitto C, Vos T, Abrahams N, Watts CH. The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science. 2013; 340:1527–1528.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Bonomi A, Thompson RS, Anderson M, Reid RJ, Carrell D, Dimer JA, Rivara FP. Intimate partner violence and women's physical mental and social functioning. Am J Prev Med. 2006; 30:458–46676.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9 Breiding MJ, Black MC, Ryan GW. Chronic disease and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner violence‐18 U.S. States/territories. Ann Epidemiol. 2005; 18:538–544.CrossrefGoogle Scholar10 Mason SM, Wright RJ, Hibert EN, Spiegelman D, Forman JP, Rich‐Edwards JW. Intimate partner violence and incidence of hypertension in women. Ann Epidemiol. 2012; 22:562–567.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11 Mason SM, Wright RJ, Hibert EN, Spiegelman D, Jun HJ, Hu FB, Rich‐Edwards JW. Intimate partner violence and incidence of type 2 diabetes in women. Diabetes Care. 2013; 36:1159–1165.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Clark CJ, Everson‐Rose SA, Alonso A, Spencer RA, Brady SS, Resnick MD, Borowsky IW, Connett JE, Krueger RF, Suglia SF. Effect of partner violence in adolescence and young adulthood on blood pressure and incident hypertension. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9:e92204.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Clark CJ, Alonso A, Everson‐Rose SA, Spencer RA, Brady SS, Resnick MD, Borowsky IW, Connett JE, Krueger RF, Nguyen‐Feng VN, Feng SL, Suglia SF. Intimate partner violence in late adolescence and young adulthood and subsequent cardiovascular risk in adulthood. Prev Med. 2016; 87:132–137. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.02.031. [Epub 2016 Feb 24].CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics . Underlying Cause of Death 1999‐2017 on CDC WONDER Online Database, released December 2018. Data are from the Multiple Cause of Death Files, 1999‐2017, as compiled from data provided by the 57 vital statistics jurisdictions through the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program. Accessed February 18, 2019.Google Scholar15 Wilmot KA, O'Flaherty M, Capewell S, Ford ES, Vaccarino V. Coronary heart disease mortality declines in the United States from 1979 through 2011: evidence for stagnation in young adults, especially women. Circulation. 2015; 132:997–1002.LinkGoogle Scholar16 Mosca L, Mochari‐Greenberger H, Dolor RJ, Newby LK. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioral, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018; 392:1923–1994.MedlineGoogle Scholar17 Vaccarino V, Parsons L, Peterson ED, Rogers WJ, Kiefe CI, Canto J. Sex differences in mortality after acute myocardial infarction: changes from 1994 to 2006. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169:1767–1774.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 Redfors B, Angerås O, Råmunddal T, Petursson P, Haraldsson I, Dworeck C, Odenstedt J, Ioaness D, Ravn‐Fischer A, Wellin P, Sjöland H, Tokgozoglu L, Tygesen H, Frick E, Roupe R, Albertsson P, Omerovic E. Trends in gender differences in cardiac care and outcome after acute myocardial infarction in western Sweden: a report from the Swedish Web System for Enhancement of Evidence‐Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART). J Am Heart Assoc. 2015; 4:e001995DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.115.001995.LinkGoogle Scholar19 Pagidipati NJ, Peterson ED. Acute coronary syndromes in women and men. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016; 13:471–480.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Mosca L, Hammond G, Mochari‐Greenberger H, Towfighi A, Albert MA; American Heart Association Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke in Women and Special Populations Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology, Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, Council on Cardiovascular Nursing, Council on High Bloo . Fifteen‐year trends in awareness of heart disease in women: results of a 2012 American Heart Association national survey. Circulation. 2013; 127:1254–1263, e1–29.LinkGoogle Scholar21 Alvarez C, Fedock G, Grace KT, Campbell J. Provider screening and counseling for intimate partner violence: a systematic review of practices and influencing factors. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2017; 18:479–495.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22 Low CA, Thurston RC, Matthews KA. Psychosocial factors in the development of heart disease in women: current research and future directions. Psychosom Med. 2010; 72:842–854.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23 Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Basile KC, Walters ML, Chen J, Merrick MT. Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization—national intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. Morb Mort Wkly Rep. 2014; 63:1–18.MedlineGoogle Scholar24 Thurston RC, Barinas‐Mitchell E, von Kanel R, Chang Y, Koenen KC, Matthews KA. Trauma exposure and endothelial function among midlife women. Menopause. 2018; 25:368–374.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar25 Nelson HD, Bougatsos C, Blazina I. Screening women for intimate partner violence: a systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156:796–808.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar26 Feltner C, Wallace I, Berkman N, Kistler CE, Middleton JC, Barclay C, Higginbotham L, Green JT, Jonas DE. Screening for intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults: evidence report and systematic review for the UA preventive services task force. JAMA. 2018; 320:1688–1701.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar27 Burge SK, Ferrer RL, Foster EL, Becho J, Talamantes M, Wood RC, Katerndahl DA. Research or intervention or both? Women's changes after participation in a longitudinal study about intimate partner violence. Fam Syst Health. 2017; 32:259–270.CrossrefGoogle Scholar28 Miller E, McCaw B, Humphreys BL, Mitchell C. Integrating intimate partner violence assessment and intervention into healthcare in the United States: a systems approach. J Womens Health. 2015; 24:92–99.CrossrefGoogle Scholar Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Wigham S, McGovern R, Kaner E and Hackett S (2022) A review of recent innovation in psychosocial interventions for reducing violence and aggression in adults using a horizon scanning approach, Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10.1016/j.avb.2021.101685, 62, (101685), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2022. Bagheri Lankarani K, Hemyari C, Honarvar B, Khaksar E, Shaygani F, Rahmanian Haghighi M and Shaygani M (2022) Domestic violence and associated factors during COVID-19 epidemic: an online population-based study in Iran, BMC Public Health, 10.1186/s12889-022-12536-y, 22:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022. MAZZA M, MARANO G, ANTONAZZO B, CAVARRETTA E, DI NICOLA M, JANIRI L, SANI G, FRATI G and ROMAGNOLI E What about heart and mind in the COVID-19 era?, Minerva Cardiology and Angiology, 10.23736/S2724-5683.20.05309-8, 69:2 Mazza M, Marano G, Gonsalez del Castillo A, Chieffo D, Albano G, Biondi-Zoccai G, Galiuto L, Sani G and Romagnoli E (2021) Interpersonal violence: Serious sequelae for heart disease in women, World Journal of Cardiology, 10.4330/wjc.v13.i9.438, 13:9, (438-445), Online publication date: 26-Sep-2021. Ortega Pacheco Y and Martínez Rudas M (2021) Domestic violence and COVID-19 in Colombia, Psychiatry Research, 10.1016/j.psychres.2021.113925, 300, (113925), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2021. Mazza M, Marano G, Lai C, Janiri L and Sani G (2020) Danger in danger: Interpersonal violence during COVID-19 quarantine, Psychiatry Research, 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113046, 289, (113046), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2020. Barbara G, Facchin F, Micci L, Rendiniello M, Giulini P, Cattaneo C, Vercellini P and Kustermann A (2020) COVID-19, Lockdown, and Intimate Partner Violence: Some Data from an Italian Service and Suggestions for Future Approaches, Journal of Women's Health, 10.1089/jwh.2020.8590, 29:10, (1239-1242), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2020. Gama A, Pedro A, de Carvalho M, Guerreiro A, Duarte V, Quintas J, Matias A, Keygnaert I and Dias S (2021) Domestic Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Portugal, Portuguese Journal of Public Health, 10.1159/000514341, 38:Suppl. 1, (32-40), . David K, Aborode A, Olaoye D, Enang N, Oriyomi A and Yunusa I (2021) Increased Risk of Death Triggered by Domestic Violence, Hunger, Suicide, Exhausted Health System during COVID-19 Pandemic: Why, How and Solutions, Frontiers in Sociology, 10.3389/fsoc.2021.648395, 6 Irene‐López L and Kalmakis K (2022) The experience of IPV among older women in Puerto Rico; a hermeneutic phenomenological study , Journal of Advanced Nursing, 10.1111/jan.15228 ÖZCAN Ş and YANMIŞ S (2022) COVID-19 nedeniyle yaşanan karantina sürecinde yakın ilişkilerde şiddete yönelik tutumun, yaygın anksiyetenin ve etkileyen faktörlerin belirlenmesi, Karya Journal of Health Science, 10.52831/kjhs.1105342 Thibaut F and van Wijngaarden-Cremers P (2020) Women's Mental Health in the Time of Covid-19 Pandemic, Frontiers in Global Women's Health, 10.3389/fgwh.2020.588372, 1 Strenth C, Mo A, Kale N, Day P, Gonzalez L, Green R, Cruz I and Schneider F (2022) Adverse Childhood Experiences and Diabetes: Testing Violence and Distress Mediational Pathways in Family Medicine Patients, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10.1177/08862605221076536, (088626052210765) Rashid Soron T, Ashiq M, Al-Hakeem M, Chowdhury Z, Uddin Ahmed H and Afrooz Chowdhury C (2021) Domestic Violence and Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Bangladesh, JMIR Formative Research, 10.2196/24624, 5:9, (e24624) Martínez-García E, Montiel-Mesa V, Esteban-Vilchez B, Bracero-Alemany B, Martín-Salvador A, Gázquez-López M, Pérez-Morente M and Alvarez-Serrano M (2021) Sexist Myths Emergency Healthcare Professionals and Factors Associated with the Detection of Intimate Partner Violence in Women, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10.3390/ijerph18115568, 18:11, (5568) Rosida L, Mutiara Putri I, Komarudin K, Fajarini N and Suryaningsih E (2021) The Domestic Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review, Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 10.3889/oamjms.2021.7378, 9:F, (660-667) dos Santos E, de Oliveira C, Furtado B, da Costa H and do Bonfim C (2022) Female Homicide and the COVID-19 Pandemic in a State of the Northeast Region of Brazil, Homicide Studies, 10.1177/10887679221108872, (108876792211088) Gauci S, Cartledge S, Redfern J, Gallagher R, Huxley R, Lee C, Vassallo A and O'Neil A (2022) Biology, Bias, or Both? The Contribution of Sex and Gender to the Disparity in Cardiovascular Outcomes Between Women and Men, Current Atherosclerosis Reports, 10.1007/s11883-022-01046-2 Related articlesRisk of Cardiometabolic Disease and All‐Cause Mortality in Female Survivors of Domestic AbuseJoht Singh Chandan, et al. Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020;9 February 18, 2020Vol 9, Issue 4Article InformationMetrics Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley BlackwellThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.015479PMID: 32063117 Originally publishedFebruary 17, 2020 Keywordscardiovascular disease risk factorsdiabetes mellituspsychiatric comorbidityEditorialswomenhypertensiontraumaPDF download
Referência(s)