Ilse F Badenbroek1,2, Daphne M Stol3,2, Markus Mj Nielen2, Monika Hollander3, Niek J de Wit3, François G Schellevis2,4. 1. Julius Center For Health Sciences And Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands i.f.badenbroek@umcutrecht.nl. 2. Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands. 3. Julius Center For Health Sciences And Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of General Practice & Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Owing to the rising disease burden of cardiometabolic diseases (CMD), prevention programmes for CMD are increasingly implemented in primary care. Organisational practice characteristics and availability of preventive services may be associated with a more effective programme. AIM: To identify possible organisational success factors from general practices related to an effective primary prevention programme for CMD. DESIGN & SETTING: A prospective intervention study involving 37 Dutch general practices was undertaken. METHOD: Patients aged 45-70 years without known CMD, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia were invited for the prevention programme. The outcome measures were an improvement (yes/no) in four different CMD risk factors between baseline and 1-year follow-up on an individual level (body mass index [BMI], smoking, systolic blood pressure, and cholesterol ratio). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used for assessing associations between practice organisational characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Just over half of the participants showed an improvement on one or more risk factors. Marginal differences were found in the four different outcomes between the practices with different organisational characteristics. None of the practice characteristics that were tested showed a significant association with an improvement in one of the outcome measures. CONCLUSION: In this study, general practice organisational and preventive service characteristics showed no impact on the effectiveness of a CMD prevention programme. Possible explanations could be the effectiveness of protocolised pharmaceutical treatment and only limited contribution of lifestyle programmes on the improvement of CMD risk factors.
BACKGROUND: Owing to the rising disease burden of cardiometabolic diseases (CMD), prevention programmes for CMD are increasingly implemented in primary care. Organisational practice characteristics and availability of preventive services may be associated with a more effective programme. AIM: To identify possible organisational success factors from general practices related to an effective primary prevention programme for CMD. DESIGN & SETTING: A prospective intervention study involving 37 Dutch general practices was undertaken. METHOD:Patients aged 45-70 years without known CMD, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia were invited for the prevention programme. The outcome measures were an improvement (yes/no) in four different CMD risk factors between baseline and 1-year follow-up on an individual level (body mass index [BMI], smoking, systolic blood pressure, and cholesterol ratio). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used for assessing associations between practice organisational characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: Just over half of the participants showed an improvement on one or more risk factors. Marginal differences were found in the four different outcomes between the practices with different organisational characteristics. None of the practice characteristics that were tested showed a significant association with an improvement in one of the outcome measures. CONCLUSION: In this study, general practice organisational and preventive service characteristics showed no impact on the effectiveness of a CMD prevention programme. Possible explanations could be the effectiveness of protocolised pharmaceutical treatment and only limited contribution of lifestyle programmes on the improvement of CMD risk factors.
Authors: Claudia M Lobo; Bernard D Frijling; Marlies E J L Hulscher; Roos M D Bernsen; Jozé C Braspenning; Richard P T M Grol; Ad Prins; Johannes C van der Wouden Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Bruce E Landon; Sharon Lise T Normand; Ellen Meara; Steven R Simon; Richard Frank; Barbara J McNeil Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 3.929
Authors: Benjamin F Crabtree; William L Miller; Alfred F Tallia; Deborah J Cohen; Barbara DiCicco-Bloom; Helen E McIlvain; Virginia A Aita; John G Scott; Patrice B Gregory; Kurt C Stange; Reuben R McDaniel Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Kunal N Karmali; Stephen D Persell; Pablo Perel; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Mark A Berendsen; Mark D Huffman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-03-14
Authors: R M Conroy; K Pyörälä; A P Fitzgerald; S Sans; A Menotti; G De Backer; D De Bacquer; P Ducimetière; P Jousilahti; U Keil; I Njølstad; R G Oganov; T Thomsen; H Tunstall-Pedoe; A Tverdal; H Wedel; P Whincup; L Wilhelmsen; I M Graham Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Daphne M Stol; Ilse F Badenbroek; Monika Hollander; Mark M J Nielen; Roderik A Kraaijenhagen; François G Schellevis; Niek J de Wit Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Marjan Alssema; Rachel S Newson; Stephan J L Bakker; Coen D A Stehouwer; Martijn W Heymans; Giel Nijpels; Hans L Hillege; Albert Hofman; Jacqueline C M Witteman; Ron T Gansevoort; Jacqueline M Dekker Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Daphne M Stol; Monika Hollander; Markus M J Nielen; Ilse F Badenbroek; François G Schellevis; Niek J de Wit Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Sabine Ludt; Stephen M Campbell; Davorina Petek; Justine Rochon; Joachim Szecsenyi; Jan van Lieshout; Michel Wensing; Dominik Ose Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-03-09 Impact factor: 7.327