Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors .
BACKGROUND Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) morbidity and mortality .
However , there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care setting s. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness , costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD .
Improving chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: results of the BETTER pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial
Background Primary care provides most of the evidence -based chronic disease prevention and screening services offered by the healthcare system . However , there remains a gap between recommended preventive services and actual practice . This trial ( the BETTER Trial ) aim ed to improve preventive care of heart disease , diabetes , colorectal , breast and cervical cancers , and relevant lifestyle factors through a practice facilitation intervention set in primary care . Methods Pragmatic two-way factorial cluster RCT with Primary Care Physicians ’ practice s as the unit of allocation and individual patients as the unit of analysis . The setting was urban Primary Care Team practice s in two Canadian provinces . Eight Primary Care Team practice s were r and omly assigned to receive the practice -level intervention or wait-list control ;  4 physicians in each team ( 32 physicians ) were r and omly assigned to receive the patient-level intervention or wait-list control .  Patients r and omly selected from physicians ’ rosters were stratified into two groups : 1 ) general and 2 ) moderate mental illness . The interventions involved a multifaceted , evidence -based , tailored practice -level intervention with a Practice Facilitator , and a patient-level intervention involving a one-hour visit with a Prevention Practitioner where patients received a tailored ‘ prevention prescription ’ . The primary outcome was a composite Summary Quality Index of 28 evidence -based chronic disease prevention and screening actions with pre-defined targets , expressed as the ratio of eligible actions at baseline that were met at follow-up . A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted . Results 789 of 1,260 ( 63 % ) eligible patients participated . On average , patients were eligible for 8.96 ( SD 3.2 ) actions at baseline . In the adjusted analysis , control patients met 23.1 % ( 95 % CI : 19.2 % to 27.1 % ) of target actions , compared to 28.5 % ( 95 % CI : 20.9 % to 36.0 % ) receiving the practice -level intervention , 55.6 % ( 95 % CI : 49.0 % to 62.1 % ) receiving the patient-level intervention , and 58.9 % ( 95 % CI : 54.7 % to 63.1 % ) receiving both practice - and patient-level interventions ( patient-level intervention versus control , P < 0.001 ) . The benefit of the patient-level intervention was seen in both strata . The extra cost of the intervention was $ 26.43CAN ( 95 % CI : $ 16 to $ 44 ) per additional action met . Conclusions A Prevention Practitioner can improve the implementation of clinical ly important prevention and screening for chronic diseases in a cost-effective manner
Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors .
BACKGROUND Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) morbidity and mortality .
However , there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care setting s. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness , costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD .