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 .
The psychological impact of cardiovascular screening and intervention in primary care: a problem of false reassurance? British Family Heart Study Group.
BACKGROUND There have been many reports of the adverse psychological effects of screening . Here we discuss the results of a r and omized controlled study --one of the first to address this issue . AIM To determine the extent to which participation in a population -based intervention programme that aims to reduce the risk of cardiovascular diseases raises concerns about health , or undermines a belief in the ability to reduce that risk . METHOD A r and omized controlled trial involving 13 general practice s in Engl and , Wales and Scotl and was conducted . Two thous and , nine hundred and eighty-four middle-aged men and women undergoing cardiovascular risk-screening and intervention , and a r and omized comparison group of 3,576 men and women from the same practice s , who were not offered the intervention  , were compared on three outcomes : perception of current health , perceived risk of suffering a heart attack , and perceived ability to reduce the risk of suffering a heart attack . RESULTS We found no evidence to suggest that participation in this one-year , population -based intervention programme , to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease raised concerns about health or risk of a heart attack ; indeed , those in the intervention group were slightly more optimistic about their health . Alterations in perceptions of current health and the risk of suffering a heart attack were associated directly with true alterations in risk factors . A more noticeable effect on participants in this intervention programme was a reduction in their perceived ability to further reduce their risks of a heart attack . This was associated with a decrease in weight and with quitting smoking . CONCLUSION Contemporary screening and intervention programmes in primary care , aim ed at reducing risk of cardiovascular disease , do not necessarily lead to raised anxiety or concern about health . A more subtle effect of screening would appear to be one of reassurance in the face of continuing , albeit reduced , risk
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 .