Table 5 Cox regression analysis: different types of social status inconsistency and risk of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) among employed women aged 25–65 years.
| Status inconsistency indicator | n exposed (n/% IHD) | HR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Model 1* | ||
| ET‐OP2 | ||
| ET equivalent to OP (reference group) | 24 379 (49/0.2) | 1.00 |
| Status inconsistency (ET<OP) | 1357 (0/0.0) | — |
| Status inconsistency (ET>OP) | 2932 (27/0.9) | 3.63 (2.27 to 5.83) |
| Model 2 | ||
| ET–I | ||
| ET equivalent to I (reference group) | 18 977 (34/0,2) | 1.00 |
| Status inconsistency (ET<I) | 6503 (17/0.3) | 0.85 (0.47 to 1.53) |
| Status inconsistency (ET>I) | 3188 (25/0.8) | 3.53 (2.11 to 5.88) |
| Model 3 | ||
| OP–I | ||
| OP equivalent to I (reference group) | 19 844 (56/0,3) | 1.00 |
| Status inconsistency (OP<I) | 5264 (17/0.3) | 0.67 (0.39 to 1.15) |
| Status inconsistency (OP>I) | 3560 (3/0.1) | 0.41 (0.13 to 1.31) |
ET, education and training; I, income; OP, occupational position.
*HRs are adjusted for income.