1
|
Kuneinen SM, Eriksson JG, Kautiainen H, Ekblad MO, Korhonen PE. The feasibility and outcome of a community-based primary prevention program for cardiovascular disease in the 21st century. Scand J Prim Health Care 2021; 39:157-165. [PMID: 34092186 PMCID: PMC8293959 DOI: 10.1080/02813432.2021.1913893] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2020] [Accepted: 01/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE There is no evidence that systematic screening and risk factor modification in an unselected, asymptomatic population will reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a primary care CVD prevention program on mortality during a 13-year follow-up. DESIGN A risk factor survey was sent, followed by a nurse-led lifestyle counselling to respondents with at least one CVD risk factor, and a general practitioner's (GP) appointment for high-risk persons. Screening and interventions were performed during 2005-2006. SETTING A public health care centre in the town of Harjavalta, Finland. SUBJECTS All home-dwelling 45-70-year old inhabitants without manifested CVD or diabetes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES All-cause and CVD mortality. RESULTS Altogether 74% (2121/2856) inhabitants responded to the invitation. The intervention was received by 1465 individuals (52% of the invited population): 398 risk persons had an appointment with a nurse, followed by an appointment with a GP for 1067 high-risk persons. During the follow-up, 370 persons died. Mortality among the non-respondents was twofold compared to the participants'. In subjects who received the intervention, the age- and gender-adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.44 (95% CI: 0.36 to 0.54) compared to the subjects who did not receive the intervention. CONCLUSIONS Reducing mortality is possible in a primary care setting by raising health awareness in the community with screening, by targeted lifestyle counselling and evidence-based preventive medication for persons at high risk for CVD. Subjects not willing to participate in health surveys have the worst prognosis.Key PointsPreviously, there is no evidence that systematic screening and risk factor modification in an unselected, asymptomatic population will reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality.With a stepwise screening program it is possible to scale the magnitude of CVD prevention in the community.Reducing mortality in a community is possible by screening, targeted lifestyle counselling, and by evidence-based preventive medication for high-risk persons.Subjects not willing to participate in health surveys have the worst prognosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Susanna M. Kuneinen
- Department of General Practice, Turku University and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
- Central Satakunta Health Federation of Municipalities, Harjavalta, Finland
| | - Johan G. Eriksson
- Folkhälsan Research Center, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
- Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore Institute for Clinical Sciences (SICS), Singapore, Singapore
| | - Hannu Kautiainen
- Folkhälsan Research Center, Helsinki, Finland
- Unit of Primary Health Care, Kuopio University Hospital, Kuopio, Finland
| | - Mikael O. Ekblad
- Department of General Practice, Turku University and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
| | - Päivi E. Korhonen
- Department of General Practice, Turku University and Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
- Central Satakunta Health Federation of Municipalities, Harjavalta, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dahl M, Søndergaard SF, Diederichsen A, Pouwer F, Pedersen SS, Søndergaard J, Lindholt J. Facilitating participation in cardiovascular preventive initiatives among people with diabetes: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2021; 21:203. [PMID: 33482775 PMCID: PMC7824926 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-10172-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2020] [Accepted: 01/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is associated with a significantly increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The DIAbetic CArdioVAscular Screening and intervention trial (DIACAVAS) was designed to clarify whether advanced imaging for subclinical atherosclerosis combined with medical treatment is an effective strategy to develop individualised treatment algorithms for Danish men and women with T2D aged 40–60. But in the DIACAVAS pilot study, the uptake was only 41%. Consequently, we explored how people experienced living with T2D to understand how to improve the uptake in initiatives targeting the prevention of CVD. Methods We used semi-structured interviews to obtain information on how the respondents experienced having T2D. For supplementary information, we used structured interviews on e.g. socioeconomic factors. From April to October 2019, 17 participants aged 40–60 years were recruited from general practices and diabetes outpatient clinics in Denmark. Several levels of analysis were involved consistent with inductive content analysis. Results The participants’ experiences of living with T2D fell along two continuums, from an emotional to a cognitive expression and from reactive to proactive disease management. This led to identification of four archetypal characteristics: (I) powerlessness, (II) empowerment, (III) health literacy, and (IV) self-efficacy. These characteristics indicated the importance of using different approaches to facilitate participation in cardiovascular preventive initiatives. Additionally, findings inspired us to develop a model for facilitating participation in future preventive initiatives. Conclusion Encouraging people with T2D to participate in cardiovascular preventive initiatives may necessitate a tailored invitation strategy. We propose a model for an invitational process that takes into consideration invitees’ characteristics, including powerlessness, empowerment, health literacy and self-efficacy. This model may enhance participation in such initiatives. However, participation is a general concern, not only in relation to cardiovascular prevention. Our proposed model may be applicable in preventive services for people with T2D in general. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-021-10172-6.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marie Dahl
- Vascular Research Unit, Department of Surgery, Regional Hospital Central Denmark, Toldbodgade 12, DK-8800, Viborg, Denmark. .,Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Palle Juul-Jensens Blvd. 82, DK-8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
| | - Susanne Friis Søndergaard
- Centre for Research in Clinical Nursing, Regional Hospital Central Denmark/VIA University College, School of Nursing, Viborg, Toldbodgade 12, DK-8800, Viborg, Denmark.,Department of Public Health, Nursing, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 2, DK-8000, Aarhus C, Denmark
| | - Axel Diederichsen
- Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, J.B Winsløws vej 4, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark
| | - Frans Pouwer
- Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230, Odense M, Denmark.,STENO Diabetes Centre Odense, Kløvervænget 112, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.,School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong Waterfront Campus, 1 Gheringhap Street, Geelong, Victoria, 3220, Australia
| | - Susanne S Pedersen
- Department of Cardiology, Odense University Hospital, J.B Winsløws vej 4, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.,Department of Psychology, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230, Odense M, Denmark
| | - Jens Søndergaard
- Research Unit for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9A, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark
| | - Jes Lindholt
- Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Odense University Hospital, J.B. Winsløv Vej 4, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.,Elitary Research Centre of Individualised Medicine in Arterial Disease (CIMA), J.B. Winsløv Vej 4, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark.,Cardiovascular Centre of Excellence in Southern Denmark (CAVAC), J.B. Winsløv Vej 4, DK-5000, Odense C, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Ertmann RK, Nicolaisdottir DR, Kragstrup J, Siersma V, Overbeck G, Wilson P, Lutterodt MC. Selection bias in general practice research: analysis in a cohort of pregnant Danish women. Scand J Prim Health Care 2020; 38:464-472. [PMID: 33242291 PMCID: PMC7782229 DOI: 10.1080/02813432.2020.1847827] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim of the present study was to examine selection in a general practice-based pregnancy cohort. DESIGN Survey linked to administrative register data. SETTING AND SUBJECTS In spring 2015, GPs were recruited from two Danish regions. They were asked to invite all pregnant women in their practice who had their first prenatal care visit before 15 August 2016 to participate in the survey. OUTCOME MEASURES The characteristics of GPs and the pregnant women were compared at each step in the recruitment process - the GP's invitation, their agreement to participate, actual GP participation, and the women's participation - with an uncertainty coefficient to quantify the step where the largest selection occurs. RESULTS Significant differences were found between participating and non-participating practices with regards to practice characteristics such as the number of patients registered with the practice, the age and sex of doctors, and the type of practice. Despite these differences, the characteristics of the eligible patients differed little between participating and non-participating practices. In participating practices significant differences were, however, observed between recruited and non-recruited patients. CONCLUSION The skewed selection of patients was mainly caused by a high number of non-participants within practices that actively took part in the study. We recommend that a focus on the sampling within participating practices be the most important factor in representative sampling of patient populations in general practice. Key points Selection among general practitioners (GPs) is often unavoidable in practice-based studies, and we found significant differences between participating and non-participating practices. These include practice characteristics such as the number of GPs, the number of patients registered with the GP practice, as well as the sex and age of the GPs. •Despite this, only small differences in the characteristics of the eligible patients were observed between participating and non-participating practices. •In participating practices, however, significant differences were observed between recruited and non-recruited patients. •Comprehensive sampling within participating practices may be the best way to generate representative samples of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ruth K. Ertmann
- The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;
- CONTACT Ruth K. Ertmann The Research Unit for General Practice, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Copenhagen KDK-1014, Denmark
| | - Dagny R. Nicolaisdottir
- The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;
| | - Jakob Kragstrup
- The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;
| | - Volkert Siersma
- The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;
| | - Gritt Overbeck
- The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;
| | - Philip Wilson
- The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;
- Centre for Rural Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland
| | - Melissa C. Lutterodt
- The Research Unit for General Practice and Section of General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Why do general practitioners not refer patients to behaviour-change programmes after preventive health checks? A mixed-method study. BMC FAMILY PRACTICE 2019; 20:135. [PMID: 31604416 PMCID: PMC6788028 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-019-1028-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/13/2019] [Accepted: 09/20/2019] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
Background This study was embedded in the Check-In randomised controlled trial that investigated the effectiveness of general practice-based preventive health checks on adverse health behaviour and early detection of non-communicable diseases offered to individuals with low socioeconomic positions. Despite successful recruitment of patients, the intervention had no effect. One reason for the lack of effectiveness could be low rates of referral to behaviour-change programmes in the municipality, resulting in a low dose of the intervention delivered. The aim of this study is to examine the referral pattern of the general practitioners and potential barriers to referring eligible patients to these behaviour-change programmes. Methods A mixed-method design was used, including patients’ questionnaires, recording sheet from the health checks and semi-structured qualitative interviews with general practitioners. All data used in the study were collected during the time of the intervention. Logistic regressions were used to estimate odds ratios for being eligible and for receiving referrals. The qualitative empirical material was analysed thematically. Emerging themes were grouped, discussed and the material was re-read. The themes were reviewed alongside the analysis of the quantitative material to refine and discuss the themes. Results Of the 364 patients, who attended the health check, 165 (45%) were marked as eligible for a referral to behaviour-change programme by their general practitioner and of these, 90 (55%) received referrals. Daily smoking (OR = 3.22; 95% CI:2.01–5.17), high-risk alcohol consumption (OR = 2.66; 95% CI:1.38–5.12), obesity (OR = 2.89; 95% CI:1.61–5.16) and poor lung function (OR = 2.05; 95% CI:1.14–3.70) were all significantly associated with being eligible, but not with receiving referral. Four themes emerged as the main barriers to referring patients to behaviour-change programmes: 1) general practitioners’ responsibility and ownership for their patients, 2) balancing information and accepting a rejection, 3) assessment of the right time for behavioural change and 4) general practitioners’ attitudes towards behaviour-change programmes in the municipality. Conclusion We identified important barriers among the general practitioners which influenced whether the patients received referrals to behaviour-change programmes in the municipality and thereby influenced the dose of intervention delivered in Check-In. The findings suggest that an effort is needed to assist the collaboration between general practices and the municipalities’ primary preventive services. Trial registration Clinical Trials NCT01979107; October 25, 2013.
Collapse
|