OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a community based coronary heart disease health promotion project, undertaken over four years, was associated with changes in the prevalence in adults of lifestyle risk factors known to affect the development of coronary heart disease, and to estimate whether such an approach was cost effective. DESIGN: Prospective, comparative study of the effects of a health promotion intervention on coronary heart disease lifestyle risk factors, assessed by postal questionnaire sent to a randomly chosen sample, both at baseline and after four years. SUBJECTS: Intervention and control populations of adults aged 18-64 in Rotherham, both from areas with a high incidence of coronary heart disease and similar socioeconomic composition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in prevalence of lifestyle risk factors between the control and intervention communities from 1991 to 1995. The effect of the intervention on certain lifestyle behaviours was evaluated using multiple logistic regression to model the proportion with a particular behaviour in the study communities as a function of age (18-40 or 41-64 years), sex, the year of observation (1991 or 1995), and area (intervention of control). RESULTS: 6.9% fewer people smoked and 8.7% more drank low fat milk in the intervention area, but no other statistically significant changes between the areas were detected. The estimated cost per life year gained was pounds 31. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to have a cost effective impact on coronary heart disease lifestyle risk factors in a population of adults over four years using only modest resources.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a community based coronary heart disease health promotion project, undertaken over four years, was associated with changes in the prevalence in adults of lifestyle risk factors known to affect the development of coronary heart disease, and to estimate whether such an approach was cost effective. DESIGN: Prospective, comparative study of the effects of a health promotion intervention on coronary heart disease lifestyle risk factors, assessed by postal questionnaire sent to a randomly chosen sample, both at baseline and after four years. SUBJECTS: Intervention and control populations of adults aged 18-64 in Rotherham, both from areas with a high incidence of coronary heart disease and similar socioeconomic composition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in prevalence of lifestyle risk factors between the control and intervention communities from 1991 to 1995. The effect of the intervention on certain lifestyle behaviours was evaluated using multiple logistic regression to model the proportion with a particular behaviour in the study communities as a function of age (18-40 or 41-64 years), sex, the year of observation (1991 or 1995), and area (intervention of control). RESULTS: 6.9% fewer people smoked and 8.7% more drank low fat milk in the intervention area, but no other statistically significant changes between the areas were detected. The estimated cost per life year gained was pounds 31. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to have a cost effective impact on coronary heart disease lifestyle risk factors in a population of adults over four years using only modest resources.