Healthy shopper? Blood pressure testing in a shopping centre Pop-Up in England

Pop-up screening nested within routine community activities unmasks an addressed cardiovascular risk: A pilot study (Gippsland Healthy Heart Study)

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefits of a pop-up health screening for cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) in the Gippsland region, and to assess the acceptability of the screening and to determine whether such a process results in attendance at a general practitioner (GP).

PARTICIPANTS

Overall, 454 participants over the age of 18 who were residents of the Gippsland region were enrolled.

METHODS

This is a community-based, observational, prospective cohort study using pop-up screening sites at six retail locations or workplaces, where participants' blood pressure, body weight and lipid profile were measured. The primary outcome was to assess the proportion of participants with at least one unaddressed CVRF (hypertension [blood pressure >140/90 mmHg], overweight and obesity [body mass index >25 kg/m2 ] or hypercholesterolaemia [low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >2.5 mmol/L]). Email surveys were performed after 4 weeks of follow-up.

RESULTS

Overall, 85.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.1%-88.8%) of participants had at least one unaddressed CVRF. Among the 54 participants who responded to the email survey, 50 participants (92.6% [95% CI, 81.3%-97.6%]) found the screening approach acceptable, and 31 (57.4% [95% CI, 43.3%-70.5%]) considered a discussion with the GP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supported the feasibility and effectiveness of pop-up screening to detect CVRF in rural communities.

Uncontrolled hypertension at the dentist: a case report of integrated healthcare

Hypertension is a risk factor for major cardiovascular events and it is usually detected and managed by general medical practitioners (GPs) in primary care. However, it is estimated that 4.8 million adults are living with untreated high blood pressure (BP) in the UK. Health authorities are encouraging more collaborative work across health professions to find and refer individuals with undiagnosed hypertension. In this case, in 2022, a 65-year-old man with a previous history of hypertension, taking antihypertensive medication, attended a BP clinic at the University of Plymouth, Peninsula Dental School as part of a hypertension case finding pilot. His systolic and diastolic BP were 150 and 85 mmHg, respectively, and as per the trial protocol, a referral letter was sent to his GP for suspected further assessment and investigation. Then, an onward referral was made to secondary care and the participant was subsequently hospitalised for 13 days for treatment of heart failure and suspected acute coronary syndrome. This case report highlights that BP readings taken in a primary care dental setting can be very useful and recommends better integration of dental services into primary care to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events.

A Case-Finding Protocol for High Cardiovascular Risk in a Primary Care Dental School-Model with Integrated Care

BACKGROUND

National Health Service (NHS) strategies in the United Kingdom (UK) have highlighted the need to maximise case-finding opportunities by improving coverage in non-traditional settings with the aim of reducing delayed diagnosis of non-communicable diseases. Primary care dental settings may also help to identify patients.

METHODS

Case-finding appointments took place in a primary care dental school. Measurements of blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), cholesterol, glucose and QRisk were taken along with a social/medical history. Participants with high cardiometabolic risk were referred to their primary care medical general practitioner (GP) and/or to local community health self-referral services, and followed up afterwards to record diagnosis outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 182 patients agreed to participate in the study over a 14-month period. Of these, 123 (67.5%) attended their appointment and two participants were excluded for age. High blood pressure (hypertension) was detected in 33 participants, 22 of whom had not been previous diagnosed, and 11 of whom had uncontrolled hypertension. Of the hypertensive individuals with no previous history, four were confirmed by their GP. Regarding cholesterol, 16 participants were referred to their GP for hypercholesterolaemia: 15 for untreated hypercholesterolaemia and one for uncontrolled hypercholesterolaemia.

CONCLUSIONS

Case-finding for hypertension and identifying cardiovascular risk factors has high acceptability in a primary dental care setting and supported by confirmational diagnoses by the GP.

National Cross-Sectional Study of Community-Based Adverse Drug Reactions in Saudi Arabia

Background

An adverse drug reaction (ADR) is a response to a medicine that is not intended and is harmful, and which occurs at normal dose levels for humans. Currently, there are no estimates of the population-based prevalence of ADRs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA).

Objective

The aims of this study were to (1) estimate the population-based prevalence of ADRs in KSA, (2) describe the ADRs experienced by survey respondents, and (3) investigate the level of awareness of the ADR reporting system.

Patients and Methods

This was a cross-sectional survey using stratified, population-based sampling conducted at a chain of community pharmacies.

Results

Analysis was conducted on 5228 surveys; 50.17% of respondents were males, and the mean age was 39 ± 15 years (min = 18, max = 98). The sample prevalence of ADRs was 23.45% (95% CI 22.30–24.60%, P < 0.001). The estimated population prevalence (after weighting) was 28.00% (26.10–30.00%). Gastrointestinal disorders were the most commonly reported ADRs (58.73%), followed by general disorders and administration site conditions (19.74%). The largest drug class that was reported to lead to ADRs was nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (11%). Over 19% of the respondents who experienced an ADR required medical intervention to control the suffering induced by the ADR. Of the respondents who experienced an ADR, 371 (30.26%) were aware of the ADR reporting system but only 53 (14.29%) said that they had filed a report in the system.

Conclusions

Our study estimated that 28% of the population experienced an ADR over a 1-year period in KSA. Risk factors for ADR included certain chronic disease groups and the use of certain classes of medications. Regulatory authorities in KSA intend to conduct more research and deploy educational interventions to reduce ADR rates in KSA. This will hopefully occur in an international context that promotes the standardized measurement of ADRs in the community. A subset of findings from this report was presented in an oral presentation at the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) Annual Conference, September 27, 2018. In addition, a subset of findings from this report were presented on a poster at the International Conference of Pharmacoepidemiology and Therapeutic Risk Management (ICPE), August 27, 2019.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40801-020-00186-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Feeling the pressure: a cross-sectional study exploring feasibility of a healthcare Pop-Up for intraocular pressure measurements in shopping centres in England

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that a shopping centre Pop-Up health check combining an intraocular pressure (IOP) check with a general health check (blood pressure (BP)) is more readily accepted by the general public than an IOP check only. We investigate public awareness of IOP compared with BP and the feasibility of measuring IOP in large numbers in a Pop-Up.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study using a tailor-made healthcare Pop-Up.

SETTING

The 'Feeling the Pressure' Pop-Up was sited in eight regionally-different shopping centres in England.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult members of the public in shopping centres.

METHODS

On one day we measured IOP only and on another measured BP and IOP. IOP was measured by Icare IC100 tonometer (Helsinki, Finland). Potential participants were asked about their awareness of IOP and BP and when they last visited their optometrist.

RESULTS

More people attended the combined BP + IOP days (461; 60%; 95% CI 56% to 64%) than IOP-only days (307; 40%, 95% CI 37% to 43%) over 16 days of testing. We recorded IOP in 652 participants (median (IQR) age and IOP of 54 (42 to 68) years and 13 (11 to 15) mm Hg, respectively). Fewer people reported awareness about IOP (19%, 95% CI 16% to 23%) compared with BP (71%, 95% CI 66% to 75%). Of 768 participants, 60 (8%) reported no previous optometric eye examination and 185 (24%) reported >2 years since their most recent examination.

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring IOP in large numbers of the public via a shopping centre Pop-Up is feasible. Public engagement was greater when a BP check was offered alongside an IOP check, suggesting unfamiliar health checks can be promoted by aligning them with a more familiar check. Our findings hint at strategies for public health schemes that engage the public with their eye health.