ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Screening for cardiovascular risk in the general population: The SPICES implementation survey.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In 2019, cardiovascular diseases (CVD) caused 32% of deaths worldwide. The SPICES survey involved five countries in an international primary CVD prevention implementation study in the general population. The French SPICES survey was implemented in the Centre Ouest Bretagne area (COB), which is a rural, economically deprived, medically underserved territory with high cardiovascular mortality. A CVD screening in the general population was needed to select the implementation population without overburdening family practitioner (FP) workforces. The efficacy and the replicability of such a screening were unknown. The aims of this study were to identify the characteristics of the individuals undergoing CVD risk assessment with the Non-Laboratory Interheart risk score (NL-IHRS), and to identify barriers and explore facilitators when screening the general population. Methods: An implementation study combining a cross-sectional descriptive study with qualitative interviews was undertaken. The NL-IHRS was completed by trained screeners selected from health students, pharmacists, nurses, and physiotherapists in the area with a dedicated e-tool in sport and cultural events and public places. After the screening, all screener groups were interviewed until theoretical saturation for each group. Thematic analysis was performed using double-blind coding. Results: In 5 months, 3,384 assessments were undertaken in 60 different places, mostly by health students. A total of 1,587, 1,309, and 488 individuals were at low, moderate, and high CVD risk. Stressed or depressed individuals were remarkably numerous (40.1 and 24.5% of the population, respectively). Forty-seven interviews were conducted. The main facilitators were willingness of the population, trust between screeners and the research team, and media publicity. The main barriers were lack of motivation of some screeners, some individuals at risk, some stakeholders and difficulties in handling the e-tool. Conclusion: The efficacy of CVD risk screening while using mostly health students was excellent and preserved the FP workforce. Replicability was highly feasible if research teams took great care to establish and maintain trust between screeners and researchers. The e-tools should be more user-friendly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.