There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores  affect CVD events .
Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm .
BACKGROUND The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention .
Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools , or CVD risk scores , have attracted considerable attention , their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes , risk factor levels , preventive medication prescribing , and health behaviours .
Improving cardiovascular risk management: a randomized, controlled trial on the effect of a decision support tool for patients and physicians
Background There is nonoptimal adherence of general practitioners ( GPs ) and patients to cardiovascular risk reducing interventions . GPs find it difficult to assimilate multiple risk factors into an accurate assessment of cardiovascular risk . In addition , communicating cardiovascular risk to patients has proved to be difficult . Aims Improving primary prevention of cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) in primary care by enhancing patient involvement in the use of a decision support tool . Design Cluster r and omized trial . Methods Thirty-four GPs included patients ( 40 - 75 years old ) without CVD . In an interactive , small group training session lasting 4h , the GPs in the intervention group were trained to use the guidelines on cardiovascular risk and a decision support tool . The control group received educational material s about the guidelines on paper .  GPs ’ clinical performance and patients ’ risk perception and self-reported lifestyles were measured at baseline and after 6 months . Results Thirty-four GPs recorded 490 consultations , 276 in the intervention and 214 in the control group . After 6 months , no significant effect of the intervention on the GPs ’ performance or the patients ’ risk perception was found . There was only an effect on self-reported lifestyle , in that more men in the intervention group than in the control group increased their physical activity ( odds ratio 3.8 , 95 % confidence interval 1.7–8.7 ) . Conclusion The 4-h interactive , small group training did not guarantee correct application of the decision support tool and as such failed to improve GPs ’ performance or correct patients ’ risk perception . The positive effect on physical activity justifies further research on patient involvement . Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 14 : 44 - 50 © 2007 The European Society of
There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores  affect CVD events .
Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm .
BACKGROUND The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention .
Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools , or CVD risk scores , have attracted considerable attention , their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain .
OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes , risk factor levels , preventive medication prescribing , and health behaviours .