Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;329:647 (18 September), doi:10.1136/bmj.38167.589907.55 (published 17 August 2004)
Paul Wilkinson, senior lecturer1, Sam Pattenden, lecturer1, Ben Armstrong, reader1, Astrid Fletcher, professor1, R Sari Kovats, lecturer1, Punam Mangtani, lecturer1, Anthony J McMichael, professor1
1 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT
Correspondence to: P Wilkinson paul.wilkinson{at}lshtm.ac.uk
Design Population based cohort study (119 389 person years of follow up).
Setting 106 general practices from the Medical Research Council trial of assessment and management of older people in Britain.
Participants People aged
75 years.
Main outcome measures Mortality (10 123 deaths) determined by follow up through the Office for National Statistics.
Results Month to month variation accounted for 17% of annual all cause mortality, but only 7.8% after adjustment for temperature. The overall winter:non-winter rate ratio was 1.31 (95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.36). There was little evidence that this ratio varied by geographical region, age, or any of the personal, socioeconomic, or clinical factors examined, with two exceptions: after adjustment for all major covariates the winter:non-winter ratio in women compared with men was 1.11 (1.00 to 1.23), and those with a self reported history of respiratory illness had a winter:non-winter ratio of 1.20 (1.08 to 1.34) times that of people without a history of respiratory illness. There was no evidence that socioeconomic deprivation or self reported financial worries were predictive of winter death.
Conclusion Except for female sex and pre-existing respiratory illness, there was little evidence for vulnerability to winter death associated with factors thought to lead to vulnerability. The lack of socioeconomic gradient suggests that policies aimed at relief of fuel poverty may need to be supplemented by additional measures to tackle the burden of excess winter deaths in elderly people.
We studied mortality in people aged
75 years, focusing on individual determinants of vulnerability, including socioeconomic factors, sex, home heating, and previous health.
75 years on practice lists were invited to participate unless they were in a long stay hospital or nursing home or were terminally ill. Participants, recruited in 1995-8, underwent a brief multidimensional assessment. The brief assessment included questions on physical symptoms, number of medications, feelings of depression, activities of daily living, perceived health, and physical activity. Patients were asked about their current alcohol intake, smoking, sociodemographic factors (including marital status, living circumstances, financial difficulties), and home heating ("In the last year have you had difficulty keeping your home warm?"). To provide socioeconomic data for the full sample, we used the home postcode to assign a Carstairs deprivation score to each individual.9
We followed up mortality (to 30 March 2001) through the Office for National Statistics. We obtained figures for daily minimum, maximum, and mean temperature from one meteorological station per region from the British Atmospheric Data Centre.
Statistical methods
We used Poisson time series models to assess overall effects of season (month of years as categorical variable), temperature, and influenza (see also bmj.com). To analyse excess mortality in the winter season, we defined winter as December to March. For the main results, the Poisson models included age (four groups), sex, and region and interactions of these with winter. Thus, we tabulated the winter:non-winter ratio for each level (group) of each explanatory variable, and then the ratio of these winter:non-winter ratios relative to that of the baseline group. The latter can be thought of as "relative risks" of excess winter death.
|
Overall, there were 4221 deaths in 42 162 person years of follow up in winter months (100.1 deaths per 1000 person years, 95% confidence interval 97.1 to 103.1) and 5902 in 77 227 person years of follow up in other months (76.4 deaths per 1000 person years, 74.5 to 78.4).
The table shows the rates of death, ratio of rates, and relative changes in ratios according to potential modifying factors. The overall winter:non-winter rate ratio was 1.31 (1.26 to 1.36), which is slightly higher than that found in this age group in the country as a whole.2 There was little evidence that this ratio varied by geographical region (see bmj.com) or age. Women, however, had a larger winter:non-winter ratio than men for reasons other than their greater age, previous health status, social isolation, or socioeconomic position. The rate ratio for all cause excess winter death in women compared with men was (1.11, 1.00 to 1.23).
|
There was little evidence of a trend of increasing risk of excess winter death with socioeconomic group, housing tenure, or reported difficulty in making ends meet or in keeping the house warm. Nor was there clear evidence that the combination of low socioeconomic group and reported difficulty in keeping the house warm (a combination expected to identify people least able to heat their home properly) was associated with excess risk (see bmj.com). Those who lived alone seemed no more vulnerable than others.
Of the various markers of illness and activity status (table), only a history of respiratory illness was associated with winter death; the relative risk adjusted for age, sex, and region being 1.20 (1.08 to 1.34). There was no evidence that excess winter death was associated with current smoking, total pack years of cigarettes smoked (not shown), or alcohol consumption.
For most variables, the confidence intervals provide evidence against a substantial increase in risk (most exclude increases above 10%). Pre-existing respiratory disease (asthma, emphysema, or pneumonia diagnosed by a doctor, or a positive response to questions on chronic cough or phlegm) was the single strongest predictor of excess winter death (see bmj.com).
75 years, but, remarkably, they point to few of the analysed factors being markers of vulnerability except preexisting respiratory disease and female sex. The higher risk in women is not fully explained but does not seem to be due to clinical or socioeconomic differences.
The role of socioeconomic status
Some of the factors that were unrelated to excess winter death merit comment, especially as many of them were associated with overall mortality, so poor validity is unlikely to explain the lack of association. Perhaps most surprising is socioeconomic status, which showed no gradient in risk, despite the fact that the Carstairs score was a predictor of death rates overall (table), as would be expected from other published studies.10 Scrutiny of the literature, however, shows that the lack of socioeconomic gradient with winter death has been a consistent finding of UK studies.2
11
12-14 If there is a gradient in risk, it is small.
This is a conclusion that policy makers may find unexpected and at odds with current notions of vulnerability from fuel poverty. The explanation may be complex. Firstly, although lower socioeconomic groups have high mortality in absolute terms, it is not obvious that they should also have a high relative increase in deaths during winter months unless they are more exposed to the principal causes of itspecifically low ambient temperature. But we have previously shown that people in lower socioeconomic groups do not on average have cooler homes than people in higher socioeconomic groups.2 This may reflect behavioural influences, but also the fact that housing association and local authority dwellings are often as well, or better, heated than owner occupied dwellings,2 reflecting the relatively recent construction of much social housing and efforts by local authorities to improve home energy efficiency. Poverty is associated with poorer home heating when heating costs are high, so the lack of increased risk among those reporting difficulty in making ends meet and difficulty in keeping the home warm is surprising, although the results are compatible with an appreciable increase in risk in relation to the latter variable. It could be argued that reported difficulty in keeping the home warm is not a good indicator of low indoor temperatures (though in fact we have found it predictive in a previous study),2 and that reported difficulty in making ends meet might not be sensitive for poverty. However, Keatinge and colleagues place more emphasis on personal behaviours and have argued that much excess winter mortality is related to exposure to cold from "brief excursions outdoors rather than to low indoor temperatures."7 15 The observed lack of socioeconomic gradient suggests that the risk of excess winter death is quite widely distributed in elderly people, which therefore may limit the potential health impacts of initiatives that are targeted only at low income households. Of course, the situation may be different in other age groups, but it is relevant to recall the relative flatness of excess winter mortality with socioeconomic status in other UK studies not specific to this age group.
The role of pre-existing illness
The fact that frailty and pre-existing cardiovascular illness were unrelated to excess winter death was also surprising as most winter deaths are from cardiorespiratory causes. Paradoxically, respiratory disease seemed to be a strong determinant of cardiovascular but not respiratory death. The specificity of association may have been obscured by misclassification of cause of death, but analyses (not shown) of deaths with any mention of respiratory causes also did not show an association with pre-existing respiratory illness.
Conclusion
The lack of socioeconomic gradient in particular has implications for public heath policies aimed at reducing the burden of winter death, as fuel poverty relief alone may be only partially successful. The fact that the risk of excess winter death seems to be widely distributed in elderly people suggests that additional measures are needed to reach all those at risk.
|
This is the abridged version of an article that was posted on bmj.com on 17 August 2004: http://bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.38167.589907.55
We thank Chris Bulpitt, Dee Jones, and Alistair Tulloch, coinvestigators on the MRC trial of assessment and management of older people; the nurses, general practitioners, the other staff, and the patients in the participating practices; the MRC general practice research framework coordinating centre, particularly Madge Vickers, Jeannett Martin, and Nicky Fasey; the research team for the MRC trial of assessment and management of older people in the communityElizabeth Breeze, Edmond Ng, Gill Price, Susan Stirling, Rakhi Kabiwala, and Janbibi Mazar at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and Maria Nunes and Ruth Peters at Imperial College; Amina Latif and Elaine Stringer, University of Wales College of Medicine; and the trial steering committee, J Grimley Evans (chair), Andy Haines, Carol Brayne, Karen Luker, and Madge Vickers.
Funding: UK Medical Research Council grants G9900506 and G9223939; and Departments of Health and the Scottish Office. PW was supported by a Public Health Career Scientist Award (NHS Executive, CCB/BS/PHCS031), and PM by project funding from the Wellcome Trust (No 051637).
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethical approval: The relevant local research ethics committees approved the study.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses