ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1996
Costs and cost effectiveness of cardiovascular screening and intervention: the British family heart study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- Lifestyle modifications to prevent and control hypertension. 1. Methods and an overview of the Canadian recommendations. Canadian Hypertension Society, Canadian Coalition for High Blood Pressure Prevention and Control, Laboratory Centre for Disease Control at Health Canada, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 1999Guideline
- Economic evaluation of cholesterol-related interventions in general practice. An appraisal of the evidence.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 1998Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of cardiovascular risk management by practice nurses in primary care.BMC public health · 2013Trial
- Cost effectiveness of nurse led secondary prevention clinics for coronary heart disease in primary care: follow up of a randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2005Trial
- Factors that influence practice nurses to promote physical activity.British journal of sports medicine · 1997Trial
- Secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in primary care is cost effective.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Trial
- Costs and cost effectiveness of health checks conducted by nurses in primary care: the Oxcheck study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Trial
- Organised and opportunistic prevention in primary health care: estimation of missed opportunities by population based health interview surveys in Hungary.BMC family practice · 2020Article
- Article
- Families of patients with premature coronary heart disease: an obvious but neglected target for primary prevention.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2007Review
- The cost-effectiveness of lipid lowering in patients with ischaemic heart disease: an intervention and evaluation in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2000Article
- Who is targeted for lifestyle advice? A cross-sectional survey in two general practices.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999Article
- Simvastatin. A reappraisal of its cost effectiveness in dyslipidaemia and coronary heart disease.PharmacoEconomics · 1997Review
- What can be concluded from the Oxcheck and British family heart studies: commentary on cost effectiveness analyses.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo measure costs and cost effectiveness of the British family heart study cardiovascular screening and intervention programme.
designCost effectiveness analysis of randomised controlled trial. Clinical and resource use data taken from trial and unit cost data from external estimates.
setting13 general practices across Britain. SUBJECTS: 4185 men aged 40-59 and their 2827 partners.
interventionNurse led programme using a family centered approach, with follow up according to degree of risk.
main outcome measuresCost of the programme it self; overall short term cost to NHS; cost per 1% reduction in coronary risk at one year.
resultsEstimated cost of putting the programme into practice for one year was 63 pounds per person (95% confidence interval 60 pounds to 65 pounds). The overall short term cost to the health service was 77 pounds per man (29 pounds to 124 pounds) but only 13 pounds per woman (-48 pounds to 74 pounds), owing to differences in utilisation of other health service resources. The cost per 1% reduction in risk was 5.08 pounds per man (5.92 pounds including broader health service costs) and 5.78 pounds per woman (1.28 pounds taking into account wider health service savings).
conclusionsThe direct cost of the programme to a four partner practice of 7500 patients would be approximately 58,000 pounds. Annually, 8300 pounds would currently be paid to a practice of this size working to the maximum target on the health promotion bands, plus any additional reimbursement of practice staff salaries for which the practice qualified. The broader short term costs to the NHS may augment these costs for men but offset them considerably for women.
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.