ABSTRACT NUMBER: ESOC2026A355 SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF STROKE VULNERABILITY, RISK PERCEPTION, PREVENTION PRACTICES AND RISK FACTOR PREVALENCE IN A NIGERIAN COMMUNITY

Abstract Background and aims Stroke burden is shaped by factors leading to poor outcomes. Evidence remains limited on how social determinants interact with stroke vulnerability and preventive bahavior. This study assessed stroke risk factor prevalence: association between social determinants, risk perception and preventive practices among community participants in Southwest Nigeria. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among 504 adult participants aged >35 years residing in Ibadan North Local Government Area, Nigeria. Participants were recruited through community-based (purposive) sampling. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to elicit information on sociodemographics, stroke-related beliefs, risk perception, and preventive practices. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and logistics regression model at p<0.05 analysis were carried out to test associations. Results The prevalence of hypertension, obesity and diabetes were 49.2%, 20.6% and 6.2% respectively. While 43.1% of the participants perceived themselves to be at risk of stroke, preventive behaviors including healthy lifestyle, regular health checks and medication use were positively associated with stroke risk perception. Age was associated with hypertension (p<0.001) and diabetes (p=0.011), while education was linked to both hypertension (p<0.001) and diabetes (p=0.018). Marital status was associated with hypertension, and obesity was disproportionately higher among females (27.1% vs 3.2% in males, p<0.001). In the multivariable analysis, perceived vulnerability was the strongest predictor of stroke occurence (OR = 10.20, 95% CI: 4.48-23.22, p<0.001). Conclusions Stroke risk perception remains low despite high vulnerability, with varying preventive levels. Stroke prevention strategies in Nigeria should be community-based, culturally sensitive and tailored to socioeconomic realities via individual and community engagement to strengthen screening uptake and behavioral change. Conflict of interest All authors do not have anything to disclose