Literature DB >> 7492424

Ebeltoft project: baseline data from a five-year randomized, controlled, prospective health promotion study in a Danish population.

T Lauritzen1, C Leboeuf-Yde, I M Lunde, K D Nielsen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is increasing political pressure on the medical profession to approach welfare diseases, such as coronary heart disease and diabetes, through prevention. General practitioners are required to offer regular health checks to healthy people, in spite of the lack of scientific evidence for the universal need, usefulness and side effects of such an intervention. Randomized controlled trials are needed. AIM: A study was carried out to investigate people's interest in participating in health checks and in discussions about health with their own general practitioner, participants' health status, the proportion who received health advice following health checks, and the lifestyle goals they set following discussion with their general practitioner. This study reports the baseline data from a five-year randomized, controlled, prospective, population-based study in general practices in Ebeltoft, Denmark.
METHOD: All general practitioners from the four practices in Ebeltoft and a random sample of 2000 people aged between 30 and 50 years were invited to participate. Participants were randomly divided into three groups--one control group and two intervention groups. One intervention group were given a health check which included being screened for cardiovascular risk factors, lung and liver function, fitness, sight and hearing and an optional test for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV); this group received written feedback from the general practitioner. The other intervention group were also given a health check and written feedback; in addition, they were given the opportunity to attend their general practitioner to discuss preventive health.
RESULTS: A total of 1370 people participated in the study (69% response rate). Health advice was given to 76% of 905 participants following health checks. Almost all of the 456 participants (96%) who were offered the opportunity of discussing their health with their general practitioner took up the offer; 64% of the 456 participants reported that they had decided to undertake lifestyle changes. Eleven of those who discussed their health with the doctor were referred to a specialist (2%).
CONCLUSION: There was considerable interest in participating in health promotion. Three out of four of those having a health check were given health advice. Two out of three of those offered a health talk with the general practitioner appeared willing to make relevant lifestyle changes. Long-term follow up is needed to determine effects and side effects of health checks and health talks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7492424      PMCID: PMC1239406     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  19 in total

1.  Continuous opportunistic and systematic screening for hypertension with computer help: analysis of non-responders.

Authors:  F Difford; J P Telling; K R Davies; J E Fornear; C A Reading
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1987-05-02

2.  The 1990 contract: its history and its content.

Authors:  J W Chisholm
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-03-31

Review 3.  Coronary heart disease is not preventable by population interventions.

Authors:  J McCormick; P Skrabanek
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1988-10-08       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Screening: reasons to be cautious.

Authors:  W W Holland
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1993-05-08

5.  Prevention.

Authors:  D Mant
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1994-11-12       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  A controlled trial of multiphasic screening in middle-age: results of the South-East London Screening Study. The South-East London Screening Study Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  1977-12       Impact factor: 7.196

7.  Self-evaluated health and mortality among the elderly in New Haven, Connecticut, and Iowa and Washington counties, Iowa, 1982-1986.

Authors:  E L Idler; S V Kasl; J H Lemke
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1990-01       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Perceived health and mortality: a nine-year follow-up of the human population laboratory cohort.

Authors:  G A Kaplan; T Camacho
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1983-03       Impact factor: 4.897

9.  [First year experience with a system of mandatory reporting of HIV-positive cases in Denmark].

Authors:  E Smith; M Melbye
Journal:  Ugeskr Laeger       Date:  1992-08-03

10.  Invitation to attend a health check in a general practice setting: comparison of attenders and non-attenders.

Authors:  R Pill; J French; K Harding; N Stott
Journal:  J R Coll Gen Pract       Date:  1988-02
View more
  15 in total

1.  Screening for increased cardiometabolic risk in primary care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Corine den Engelsen; Paula S Koekkoek; Merijn B Godefrooij; Mark G Spigt; Guy E Rutten
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  Multiple risk factor interventions for primary prevention of coronary heart disease.

Authors:  S Ebrahim; A Beswick; M Burke; G Davey Smith
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-10-18

Review 3.  Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

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

4.  A randomised controlled trial of screening for adult hearing loss during preventive health checks.

Authors:  B Karlsmose; T Lauritzen; M Engberg; A Parving
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  Feasibility of a men's health promotion programme in Irish primary care.

Authors:  A McMahon; M Hodgins; C C Kelleher
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2002 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 1.568

6.  Our Healthier Nation: are general practitioners willing and able to deliver? A survey of attitudes to and involvement in health promotion and lifestyle counselling.

Authors:  B R McAvoy; E F Kaner; C A Lock; N Heather; E Gilvarry
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  "Couldn't you have done just as well without the screening?". A qualitative study of benefits from screening as perceived by people without a high cardiovascular risk score.

Authors:  Karen-Dorthe Bach Nielsen; Lise Dyhr; Torsten Lauritzen; Kirsti Malterud
Journal:  Scand J Prim Health Care       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 2.581

8.  General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease.

Authors:  Lasse T Krogsbøll; Karsten Juhl Jørgensen; Peter C Gøtzsche
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-01-31

Review 9.  Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Mariana Dyakova; Saran Shantikumar; Jill L Colquitt; Christian M Drew; Morag Sime; Joanna MacIver; Nicola Wright; Aileen Clarke; Karen Rees
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-01-29

Review 10.  Does the routine use of global coronary heart disease risk scores translate into clinical benefits or harms? A systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Stacey L Sheridan; Eric Crespo
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.