Diana Guertler1,2, Christian Meyer3,4, Marcus Dörr4,5, Janina Braatz3,4,6, Franziska Weymar3,4, Ulrich John3,4, Jennis Freyer-Adam3,4, Sabina Ulbricht3,4. 1. Institute of Social Medicine and Prevention, University Medicine Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 48, 17475, Greifswald, Germany. diana.guertler@uni-greifswald.de. 2. DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. diana.guertler@uni-greifswald.de. 3. Institute of Social Medicine and Prevention, University Medicine Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Str. 48, 17475, Greifswald, Germany. 4. DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), partner site Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. 5. Department of Internal Medicine B, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany. 6. Department of Neurology, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reach of individuals at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) constitutes a major determinant of the population impact of preventive effort. This study compares three proactive recruitment strategies regarding their reach of individuals with CVD risk factors. METHOD: Individuals aged 40-65 years were invited to a two-stage cardio-preventive program including an on-site health screening and a cardiovascular examination program (CEP) using face-to-face recruitment in general practices (n = 671), job centers (n = 1049), and mail invitations from health insurance (n = 894). The recruitment strategies were compared regarding the following: (1) participation rate; (2) participants' characteristics, i.e., socio-demographics, self-reported health, and CVD risk factors (smoking, physical activity, fruit/vegetable consumption, body mass index, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin); and (3) participation factors, i.e., differences between participants and non-participants. RESULTS: Screening participation rates were 56.0, 32.8, and 23.5 % for the general practices, the job centers, and the health insurance, respectively. Among eligible individuals for the CEP, respectively, 80.3, 65.5, and 96.1 % participated in the CEP. Job center clients showed the lowest socio-economic status and the most adverse CVD risk pattern. Being female predicted screening participation across all strategies (OR = 1.45, 95 % CI 1.07-1.98; OR = 1.34, 95 % CI 1.04-1.74; OR = 1.62, 95 % CI 1.16-2.27). Age predicted screening participation only within health insurance (OR = 1.04, 95 % CI 1.01-1.06). Within the general practices and the job centers, CEP participants were less likely to be smokers than non-participants (OR = 0.49, 95 % CI 0.26-0.94; OR = 0.42, 95 % CI 0.20-0.89). CONCLUSION: The recruitment in general practices yielded the highest reach. However, job centers may be useful to reduce health inequalities induced by social gradient.
PURPOSE: Reach of individuals at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) constitutes a major determinant of the population impact of preventive effort. This study compares three proactive recruitment strategies regarding their reach of individuals with CVD risk factors. METHOD: Individuals aged 40-65 years were invited to a two-stage cardio-preventive program including an on-site health screening and a cardiovascular examination program (CEP) using face-to-face recruitment in general practices (n = 671), job centers (n = 1049), and mail invitations from health insurance (n = 894). The recruitment strategies were compared regarding the following: (1) participation rate; (2) participants' characteristics, i.e., socio-demographics, self-reported health, and CVD risk factors (smoking, physical activity, fruit/vegetable consumption, body mass index, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein, triglycerides, and glycated hemoglobin); and (3) participation factors, i.e., differences between participants and non-participants. RESULTS: Screening participation rates were 56.0, 32.8, and 23.5 % for the general practices, the job centers, and the health insurance, respectively. Among eligible individuals for the CEP, respectively, 80.3, 65.5, and 96.1 % participated in the CEP. Job center clients showed the lowest socio-economic status and the most adverse CVD risk pattern. Being female predicted screening participation across all strategies (OR = 1.45, 95 % CI 1.07-1.98; OR = 1.34, 95 % CI 1.04-1.74; OR = 1.62, 95 % CI 1.16-2.27). Age predicted screening participation only within health insurance (OR = 1.04, 95 % CI 1.01-1.06). Within the general practices and the job centers, CEP participants were less likely to be smokers than non-participants (OR = 0.49, 95 % CI 0.26-0.94; OR = 0.42, 95 % CI 0.20-0.89). CONCLUSION: The recruitment in general practices yielded the highest reach. However, job centers may be useful to reduce health inequalities induced by social gradient.
Authors: Scott M Grundy; James I Cleeman; Stephen R Daniels; Karen A Donato; Robert H Eckel; Barry A Franklin; David J Gordon; Ronald M Krauss; Peter J Savage; Sidney C Smith; John A Spertus; Fernando Costa Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-09-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Hein de Vries; Jonathan van 't Riet; Mark Spigt; Job Metsemakers; Marjan van den Akker; Jeroen K Vermunt; Stef Kremers Journal: Prev Med Date: 2007-08-23 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Ashkan Afshin; Neal L Benowitz; Vera Bittner; Stephen R Daniels; Harold A Franch; David R Jacobs; William E Kraus; Penny M Kris-Etherton; Debra A Krummel; Barry M Popkin; Laurie P Whitsel; Neil A Zakai Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Giuseppe Mancia; Robert Fagard; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Josep Redón; Alberto Zanchetti; Michael Böhm; Thierry Christiaens; Renata Cifkova; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Maurizio Galderisi; Diederick E Grobbee; Tiny Jaarsma; Paulus Kirchhof; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stéphane Laurent; Athanasios J Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Luis Miguel Ruilope; Roland E Schmieder; Per Anton Sirnes; Peter Sleight; Margus Viigimaa; Bernard Waeber; Faiez Zannad Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Sophie Baumann; Diana Guertler; Franziska Weymar; Martin Bahls; Marcus Dörr; Neeltje van den Berg; Ulrich John; Sabina Ulbricht Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2019-06-12
Authors: Antje Ullrich; Lisa Voigt; Sophie Baumann; Franziska Weymar; Ulrich John; Marcus Dörr; Sabina Ulbricht Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 3.295