Dataset Information

A Randomised Trial Examining Cardiovascular Morbidity and All-Cause Mortality 24 years Following General Health Checks: the Ebeltoft Health Promotion Project (EHPP).

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Global prevalence of risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality is increasing. Treatments are available but can only be implemented if individuals at risk are identified. General health checks have been suggested to facilitate this process. OBJECTIVES:To examine the long-term effect of population-based general health checks on CVD and all-cause mortality. DESIGN AND SETTING:The Ebeltoft Health Promotion Project (EHPP) is a parallel randomised controlled trial in a Danish primary care setting. PARTICIPANTS:The EHPP enrolled individuals registered in the Civil Registration System as (1) inhabitants of Ebeltoft municipality, (2) registered with a general practitioner (GP) participating in the study and (3) aged 30-49 on 1 January 1991. A total of 3464 individuals were randomised as invitees (n=2000) or non-invitees (n=1464). Of the invitees, 493 declined. As an external control group, we included 1?511?498 Danes living outside the municipality of Ebeltoft. INTERVENTIONS:Invitees were offered a general health check and, if test-results were abnormal, recommended a 15-45?min consultation with their GP. Non-invitees in Ebeltoft received a questionnaire at baseline and were offered a general health check at year 5. The external control group, that is, the remaining Danish population, received routine care only. OUTCOME MEASURES:HRs for CVD and all-cause mortality. RESULTS:Every individual randomised was analysed. When comparing invitees to non-invitees within the municipality of Ebeltoft, we found no significant effect of general health checks on CVD (HR=1.11 (0.88; 1.41)) or all-cause mortality (HR=0.93 (0.75; 1.16)). When comparing invitees to the remaining Danish population, we found similar results for CVD (adjusted HR=0.99 (0.86; 1.13)) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR=0.96 (0.85; 1.09)). CONCLUSION:We found no effect of general health checks offered to the general population on CVD or all-cause mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT00145782; 2015-57-0002; 62908, 187.

SUBMITTER: Bernstorff M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6830618 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomised Trial Examining Cardiovascular Morbidity and All-Cause Mortality 24 years Following General Health Checks: the Ebeltoft Health Promotion Project (EHPP).

Bernstorff Martin M Deichgræber Pia P Bruun Niels Henrik NH Dalsgaard Else-Marie EM Fenger-Grøn Morten M Lauritzen Torsten T

BMJ open 20191028 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>Global prevalence of risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality is increasing. Treatments are available but can only be implemented if individuals at risk are identified. General health checks have been suggested to facilitate this process.<h4>Objectives</h4>To examine the long-term effect of population-based general health checks on CVD and all-cause mortality.<h4>Design and setting</h4>The Ebeltoft Health Promotion Project (EHPP) is a parallel ra ...[more]

PMID: 31662372

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGeneral health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used individual screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is therefore important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. This is the first update of the review published in 2012.ObjectivesTo quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers on 31 January 2018. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One review author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trial authors about additional studies.Selection criteriaWe included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted trial authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. When possible, we analysed the results with a random-effects model meta-analysis; otherwise, we did a narrative synthesis.Main resultsWe included 17 trials, 15 of which reported outcome data (251,891 participants). Risk of bias was generally low for our primary outcomes. Health checks have little or no effect on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants and 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I2 = 0%), or cancer mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; 8 trials; 139,290 participants and 3663 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I2 = 33%), and probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 9 trials; 170,227 participants and 6237 deaths; moderate-certainty evidence; I2 = 65%). Health checks have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal ischaemic heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 4 trials; 164,881 persons, 10,325 events; high-certainty evidence; I2 = 11%), and probably have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 3 trials; 107,421 persons, 4543 events; moderate-certainty evidence, I2 = 53%).Authors' conclusionsGeneral health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

Project description:ObjectivesTo quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks in adults with an emphasis on patient-relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality rather than on surrogate outcomes.DesignCochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. For mortality, we analysed the results with random effects meta-analysis, and for other outcomes we did a qualitative synthesis as meta-analysis was not feasible.Data sourcesMedline, EMBASE, Healthstar, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EPOC register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP, supplemented by manual searches of reference lists of included studies, citation tracking (Web of Knowledge), and contacts with trialists.Selection criteriaRandomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adult populations unselected for disease or risk factors. Health checks defined as screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system. We did not include geriatric trials.Data extractionTwo observers independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary.ResultsWe identified 16 trials, 14 of which had available outcome data (182,880 participants). Nine trials provided data on total mortality (11,940 deaths), and they gave a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.03). Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (0.91 to 1.17), and eight on cancer mortality (3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (0.92 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings. We did not find beneficial effects of general health checks on morbidity, hospitalisation, disability, worry, additional physician visits, or absence from work, but not all trials reported on these outcomes. One trial found that health checks led to a 20% increase in the total number of new diagnoses per participant over six years compared with the control group and an increased number of people with self reported chronic conditions, and one trial found an increased prevalence of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia. Two out of four trials found an increased use of antihypertensives. Two out of four trials found small beneficial effects on self reported health, which could be due to bias.ConclusionsGeneral health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although they increased the number of new diagnoses. Important harmful outcomes were often not studied or reported.Systematic review registrationCochrane Library, doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009009.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic preventive health checks in primary care have been introduced in several countries. The Danish Health Service does not provide this service, but health checks are nevertheless being conducted unsystematically. Very little is known about the GPs' experience with this service.The purpose of our study is to describe GPs' attitudes towards and concerns about providing preventive health checks and to describe their experiences with the health checks that they provide in daily practice.MethodsA qualitative descriptive study was conducted based on three semi-structured focus group interviews with 16 GPs from Central Region, Denmark. The focus group interviews took place at the Department of Public Health, Section for General Practice, Aarhus University in November 2010.ResultsWe found that the participating GPs all conducted some kind of preventive health checks, but also that there was great diversity in the content. The GPs were somewhat ambivalent towards health checks. Many GPs found the service beneficial for the patients. Concurrently, they had reservations about promoting ill-health, they questioned whether the health checks were a core mission of primary care, and they were concerned whether the health checks would benefit the "right" patients. The GPs felt a need for further documentation of the benefits for the patients before a possible future implementation of systematic health checks. Some GPs found that health checks could be performed in other settings than general practice.ConclusionsOur study revealed that health checks are performed differently. Their quality differs, and the GPs perform the health check based on their personal attitude towards this service and prevention in general. Our analysis suggests that the doctors are basically uncertain about the best approach. Our study also uncovers the GPs' reservations about inducing negative psychological reactions and decreased well-being among the health check participants. Further studies are needed to disclose where these concerns emerge.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health checks or health screenings identify (risk factors for) disease in people without a specific medical indication. So far, the perspective of (potential) health check users has remained underexposed in discussions about the ethics and regulation of health checks. METHODS:In 2017, we conducted a qualitative study with lay people from the Netherlands (four focus groups). We asked what participants consider characteristics of good and bad health checks, and whether they saw a role for the Dutch government. RESULTS:Participants consider a good predictive value the most important characteristic of a good health check. Information before, during and after the test, knowledgeable and reliable providers, tests for treatable (risk factors for) disease, respect for privacy, no unnecessary health risks and accessibility are also mentioned as criteria for good health checks. Participants make many assumptions about health check offers. They assume health checks provide certainty about the presence or absence of disease, that health checks offer opportunities for health benefits and that the privacy of health check data is guaranteed. In their choice for provider and test they tend to rely more on heuristics than information. Participants trust physicians to put the interest of potential health check users first and expect the Dutch government to intervene if providers other than physicians failed to do so by offering tests with a low predictive value, or tests that may harm people, or by infringing the privacy of users. CONCLUSIONS:Assumptions of participants are not always justified, but they may influence the choice to participate. This is problematic because choices for checks with a low predictive value that do not provide health benefits may create uncertainty and may cause harm to health; an outcome diametrically opposite to the one intended. Also, this may impair the relationship of trust with physicians and the Dutch government. To further and protect autonomous choice and to maintain trust, we recommend the following measures to timely adjust false expectations: advertisements that give an accurate impression of health check offers, and the installation of a quality mark.

Project description:BackgroundBehavioural sciences have been shown to support the development of more effective interventions aimed at promoting healthy lifestyles. However, the operationalization of this knowledge seems to be sub-optimal in public health. Effective knowledge transfer strategies are thus needed to optimize the use of knowledge from behavioural sciences in this field. To this end, the present study examined public health practitioners' perceptions and use of theories and frameworks from behavioural sciences to design health promotion interventions.MethodsThis study adopted an exploratory qualitative design. Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 27 public health practitioners from across Canada to explore current intervention development processes, the extent to which they integrate theory and framework from behavioural sciences, and their perceptions regarding the use of this knowledge to inform intervention design. Practitioners from the public sector or non-profit/private organizations who were involved in the development of interventions aimed at promoting physical activity, healthy eating, or other healthy lifestyle habits (e.g., not smoking) were eligible to participate.ResultsPublic health practitioners generally agreed that behaviour change is an important goal of public health interventions. On the other hand, behavioural science theories and frameworks did not appear to be fully integrated in the design of public health interventions. The main reasons were (1) a perceived lack of fit with current professional roles and tasks; (2) a greater reliance on experiential-produced knowledge rather than academic knowledge (mainly for tailoring interventions to local setting characteristics); (3) the presence of a fragmented knowledge base; (4) the belief that theories and frameworks require too much time and resources to be operationalized; and 4) the belief that using behavioural sciences might undermine partnership building.ConclusionsThis study provided valuable insights that may inform knowledge transfer strategies that could be optimally designed to support the integration of behavioural sciences theories and frameworks into public health practices.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between the concerns of parents, teachers, and nurses regarding each child's well-being and the school doctor actions conducted in routine general health checks.DesignA blinded, observational study. Prior to the health check parents, teachers, and nurses completed questionnaires assessing their concerns. Doctors, blinded to the responses, routinely examined all children accompanied by parents and reported their actions after each health check. Multilevel logistic regression was used to analyse the association of the concerns with the actions.Setting21 primary schools in four municipalities in Finland.ParticipantsBetween August 2017 and August 2018, we randomly recruited 1341 children from grades 1 and 5, aged 7 and 11 years, respectively.Outcome measuresOutcome measures were the respondents' concerns and the school doctor actions. The extent of concerns was assessed on a five-point Likert scale. Concern refers to 'Quite a lot or a great deal of concern' by at least one respondent. The school doctor actions included instructions and/or significant discussions, prescriptions, laboratory tests and/or medical imaging, scheduling of follow-up appointments, referrals to other professionals, and referrals to specialised care.ResultsAltogether, respondents were concerned about 47.5% of children. The top three concerns comprised growth/and or physical symptoms (22.7%), emotions (16.2%), and concentration (15.1%). All concerns were associated with some type of school doctor action (ORs: 1.66-4.27, p≤0.05); but only concerns regarding growth and/or physical symptoms were associated with all actions. Almost all concerns were associated with referrals to other professionals (ORs: 1.80-4.52, p≤0.01); emotions had the strongest association OR 4.52 (95% CI 3.00 to 6.80, p<0.0001).ConclusionsHealth checks by school doctors may lead to referrals of children to other professionals especially for children's psychosocial problems. This should be considered when developing the roles, training, and multiprofessional collaboration of school health care professionals.Trial registrationNCT03178331.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Systems transformation for health promotion, involving engagement from multiple disciplines and levels of influence, requires an investment in partnership development. Integrated youth service is a collaborative model that brings organisations together to provide holistic care for youth. Frayme is an international knowledge translation network designed to support the uptake and scaling of integrated youth service. Social network analysis (SNA) is the study of relationships among social units and is useful to better understand how partners collaborate within a network to achieve major objectives. The purpose of this paper is to apply SNA to the Frayme network in order to (1) examine the level and strength of partnerships, (2) identify the strategies being employed to promote the main objectives and (3) apply the findings to current research in youth mental health and system transformation. METHODS:The PARTNER tool includes a validated survey and analysis software designed to examine partner interconnections. This tool was used to perform the SNA and 51 of the 75 partners completed the survey (14 researchers, 2 advisory groups and 35 organisations). A network map was created and descriptive frequencies were calculated. RESULTS:The overall network scores for the Frayme network were 20.6% for density, 81.5% for centralisation and 71.7% for overall trust. The Frayme secretariat received a 3.84 out of a possible 4 for value. In addition, the youth and family advisories each received a value score of 4 and all Leadership Team organisations received a score of 2.97 or above. CONCLUSIONS:The Frayme secretariat links many partners who would otherwise be disconnected and acts as a significant conduit for novel information. Frayme may have the opportunity to enhance value perceptions among broader network members by profiling individual organisations and the potential leveraging opportunities that might exist through their work. These findings increase understanding with respect to the mechanisms of network development and will be helpful to inform partnership development in the future. In addition, they contribute to the literature with respect to knowledge translation practice as well as the scaling of collaborative interventions within youth mental health.

Dataset Information

A Randomised Trial Examining Cardiovascular Morbidity and All-Cause Mortality 24 years Following General Health Checks: the Ebeltoft Health Promotion Project (EHPP).

Publications

A Randomised Trial Examining Cardiovascular Morbidity and All-Cause Mortality 24 years Following General Health Checks: the Ebeltoft Health Promotion Project (EHPP).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets