ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1998
Intensive cardiovascular risk factor intervention in a rural practice: a glimmer of hope?
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does the routine use of global coronary heart disease risk scores translate into clinical benefits or harms? A systematic review of the literature.BMC health services research · 2008Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge trials of primary care-based health promotion to modify coronary heart disease risks have shown only modest benefits. Could more intensive intervention, with doctors sharing with practice nurses in health promotion, produce better health outcomes in the context of the small family practice? How cost-effective might these interventions be?
aimTo assess the cost-effectiveness of an intensive programme of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factor modification in a rural general practice in which doctors had a major input.
methodA longitudinal study of changes in risk factors in a group of adult patients identified as having one or more major CHD risk factor and monitored for one to seven years. Patients were recruited from and followed up in health promotion clinics, routine practice nurse appointments, or routine doctors' surgeries. All received the practice's routine interventions to modify risk, and changes in risk factors were recorded. Time spent by members of the primary health care team on CHD health promotion was recorded over a two-year period.
resultsFrom a practice list of 2040, 760 patients with one or more CHD risk factors were identified and followed up over a mean of 3.61 years (range six months to seven years). Significant improvements in each of the risk factors occurred, except in body mass index (BMI). Mean Dundee risk scores fell from 7.4 to 5.7 (by 23.3%). The annual cost to the practice (including doctor/nurse/secretarial time plus sundry practice expenses and laboratory costs, but excluding drug costs) was 6000 pounds. Cost per coronary death prevented was calculated as approximately 10,000 pounds.
conclusionThe results show an effect on risk factors broadly similar but slightly greater in magnitude than that achieved in the OXCHECK and British Family Heart Studies of nurse-delivered risk factor intervention in primary care. The results suggest that more intensive effort in lifestyle modification and health promotion, with more active involvement of doctors, could produce significant additional benefit. The cost-effectiveness of this approach compares favourably with many other accepted measures in coronary heart disease prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9624766PMC1409987W2343155791What 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.