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 .
Ebeltoft project: baseline data from a five-year randomized, controlled, prospective health promotion study in a Danish population.
BACKGROUND There is increasing political pressure on the medical profession to approach welfare diseases , such as coronary heart disease and diabetes , through prevention . General practitioners are required to offer regular health checks to healthy people  , in spite of the lack of scientific evidence for the universal need , usefulness and side effects of such an intervention . R and omized controlled trials are needed . AIM A study was carried out to investigate people 's interest in participating in health checks and in discussion s about health with their own general practitioner , participants ' health status , the proportion who received health advice following health checks , and the lifestyle goals they set following discussion with their general practitioner . This study reports the baseline data from a five-year r and omized , controlled , prospect i ve , population -based study in general practice s in Ebeltoft , Denmark . METHOD All general practitioners from the four practice s in Ebeltoft and a r and om sample of 2000 people aged between 30 and 50 years were invited to participate . Participants were r and omly divided into three groups -- one control group and two intervention groups . One intervention group were given a health check which included being screened for cardiovascular risk factors , lung and liver function , fitness , sight and hearing and an optional test for the human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) ; this group received written feedback from the general practitioner . The other intervention group were also given a health check and written feedback ; in addition , they were given the opportunity to attend their general practitioner to discuss preventive health . RESULTS A total of 1370 people participated in the study ( 69 % response rate ) . Health advice was given to 76 % of 905 participants following health checks . Almost all of the 456 participants ( 96 % ) who were offered the opportunity of discussing their health with their general practitioner took up the offer ; 64 % of the 456 participants reported that they had decided to undertake lifestyle changes . Eleven of those who discussed their health with the doctor were referred to a specialist ( 2 % ) . CONCLUSION There was considerable interest in participating in health promotion . Three out of four of those having a health check were given health advice . Two out of three of those offered a health talk with the general practitioner appeared willing to make relevant lifestyle changes . Long-term follow up is needed to determine effects and side effects of health checks and health talks
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 .