Literature DB >> 9552998

Screening for hypercholesterolaemia in primary care: randomised controlled trial of postal questionnaire appraising risk of coronary heart disease.

B Hutchison1, S Birch, C E Evans, L J Goldsmith, B A Markham, J Frank, M Paterson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To validate a self administered postal questionnaire appraising risk of coronary heart disease. To determine whether use of this questionnaire increased the percentage of people at high risk of coronary heart disease and decreased the percentage of people at low risk who had their cholesterol concentration measured.
DESIGN: Validation was by review of medical records and clinical assessment. The questionnaire appraising risk of coronary heart disease encouraged those meeting criteria for cholesterol measurement to have a cholesterol test and was tested in a randomised controlled trial. The intervention group was sent the risk appraisal questionnaire with a health questionnaire that determined risk of coronary heart disease without identifying the risk factors as related to coronary heart disease; the control group was sent the health questionnaire alone.
SETTING: One capitation funded primary care practice in Canada with an enrolled patient population of about 12 000.
SUBJECTS: Random sample of 100 participants in the intervention and control groups were included in the validation exercise. 5686 contactable patients aged 20 to 69 years who on the basis of practice records had not had a cholesterol test performed during the preceding 5 years were included in the randomised controlled trial. 2837 were in the intervention group and 2849 were in the control group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of assessment of risk of coronary heart disease with risk appraisal questionnaire. Rate of cholesterol testing during three months of follow up.
RESULTS: Sensitivity of questionnaire appraising coronary risk was 87.5% (95% confidence interval 73.2% to 95.8%) and specificity 91.7% (81.6% to 97.2%). Of the patients without pre-existing coronary heart disease who met predefined screening criteria based on risk, 45 out of 421 in the intervention group (10.7%) and 9 out of 504 in the control group (1.8%) had a cholesterol test performed during follow up (P<0.0001). Of the patients without a history of coronary heart disease who did not meet criteria for cholesterol testing, 30 out of 1128 in the intervention group (2.7%) and 18 out of 1099 in the control group (1.6%) had a cholesterol test (P=0.175). Of the patients with pre-existing coronary heart disease, 1 out of 15 in the intervention group (6.7%) and 1 out of 23 in the control group (4.3%) were tested during follow up (P=0.851, one tailed Fisher's exact test).
CONCLUSIONS: Although the questionnaire appraising coronary risk increased the percentage of people at high risk who obtained cholesterol testing, the effect was small. Most patients at risk who received the questionnaire did not respond by having a test.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9552998      PMCID: PMC28524          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.316.7139.1208

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  24 in total

1.  Improved preventive care following an intervention during an ambulatory care rotation: carryover to a second setting.

Authors:  J E Korn; L A Schlossberg; E C Rich
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1988 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Effect of medical records' checklists on implementation of periodic health measures.

Authors:  C Cheney; J W Ramsdell
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 4.965

3.  Delayed feedback of physician performance versus immediate reminders to perform preventive care. Effects on physician compliance.

Authors:  W M Tierney; S L Hui; C J McDonald
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Randomization by cluster. Sample size requirements and analysis.

Authors:  A Donner; N Birkett; C Buck
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1981-12       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Improving physician compliance with preventive medicine guidelines.

Authors:  D I Cohen; B Littenberg; C Wetzel; D Neuhauser
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1982-10       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Preventive care: do we practice what we preach?

Authors:  N Lurie; W G Manning; C Peterson; G A Goldberg; C A Phelps; L Lillard
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1987-07       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Preventive content of adult primary care: do generalists and subspecialists differ?

Authors:  A J Dietrich; H Goldberg
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1984-03       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Strategies for the prevention of coronary heart disease: a policy statement of the European Atherosclerosis Society.

Authors: 
Journal:  Eur Heart J       Date:  1987-01       Impact factor: 29.983

9.  Performance of cancer screening in a university general internal medicine practice: comparison with the 1980 American Cancer Society Guidelines.

Authors:  S J McPhee; R J Richard; S N Solkowitz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1986 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Screening procedures in the asymptomatic adult. Comparison of physicians' recommendations, patients' desires, published guidelines, and actual practice.

Authors:  B Woo; B Woo; E F Cook; M Weisberg; L Goldman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1985-09-20       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Silvana Unigwe; Glyn Elwyn; Kerenza Hood
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-27

2.  Opportunistic screening carried out in the family medicine settings.

Authors:  Milica Katić
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.351

3.  Using disease risk estimates to guide risk factor interventions: field test of a patient workbook for self-assessing coronary risk.

Authors:  J Michael Paterson; Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas; C David Naylor
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.377

4.  A coronary heart disease risk score based on patient-reported information.

Authors:  Arch G Mainous; Richelle J Koopman; Vanessa A Diaz; Charles J Everett; Peter W F Wilson; Barbara C Tilley
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2007-03-13       Impact factor: 2.778

Review 5.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

6.  Missed opportunities for coronary heart disease diagnoses: primary care experience.

Authors:  Mehtap Turkay; Yesim Senol; Mustafa Kemal Alimoglu; Mehmet R Aktekin; Necmi Deger
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 1.351

Review 7.  Are interventions to increase the uptake of screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors effective? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  A T Cheong; S M Liew; E M Khoo; N F Mohd Zaidi; K Chinna
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 2.497

8.  What are the determinants for individuals to undergo cardiovascular disease health checks? A cross sectional survey.

Authors:  Ai Theng Cheong; Ee Ming Khoo; Su May Liew; Karuthan Chinna
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Eating control and eating behavior modification to reduce abdominal obesity: a 12-month randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Soo Kyoung Kim; Norma Patricia Rodriguez Rocha; Hyekyeong Kim
Journal:  Nutr Res Pract       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 1.926

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.