OBJECTIVES: To validate a self administered postal questionnaire appraising risk of @entity301 . To determine whether use of this questionnaire increased the percentage of @entity1 at high risk of @entity301 and decreased the percentage of @entity1 at low risk who had their @entity165 concentration measured. DESIGN: Validation was by review of medical records and clinical assessment. The questionnaire appraising risk of @entity301 encouraged those meeting criteria for @entity165 measurement to have a @entity165 test and was tested in a randomised controlled trial. The intervention group was sent the risk appraisal questionnaire with a health questionnaire that determined risk of @entity301 without identifying the risk factors as related to @entity301 ; the control group was sent the health questionnaire alone. SETTING: One capitation funded primary care practice in Canada with an enrolled @entity1 population of about 12 000. SUBJECTS: Random sample of 100 @entity1 in the intervention and control groups were included in the validation exercise. 5686 contactable @entity1 aged 20 to 69 years who on the basis of practice records had not had a @entity165 test performed during the preceding 5 years were included in the randomised controlled trial. 2837 were in the intervention group and 2849 were in the control group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of assessment of risk of @entity301 with risk appraisal questionnaire. Rate of @entity165 testing during three months of follow up. RESULTS: Sensitivity of questionnaire appraising coronary risk was 87.5% (95% confidence interval 73.2% to 95.8%) and specificity 91.7% (81.6% to 97.2%). Of the @entity1 without pre-existing @entity301 who met predefined screening criteria based on risk, 45 out of 421 in the intervention group (10.7%) and 9 out of 504 in the control group (1.8%) had a @entity165 test performed during follow up (P<0.0001). Of the @entity1 without a history of @entity301 who did not meet criteria for @entity165 testing, 30 out of 1128 in the intervention group (2.7%) and 18 out of 1099 in the control group (1.6%) had a @entity165 test (P=0.175). Of the @entity1 with pre-existing @entity301 , 1 out of 15 in the intervention group (6.7%) and 1 out of 23 in the control group (4.3%) were tested during follow up (P=0.851, one tailed Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: Although the questionnaire appraising coronary risk increased the percentage of @entity1 at high risk who obtained @entity165 testing, the effect was small. Most @entity1 at risk who received the questionnaire did not respond by having a test.

Screening for hypercholesterolaemia in primary care: randomised controlled trial of postal questionnaire appraising risk of XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['participants', 'patients', 'patient', 'people'] @entity165 :: ('MESH:D002784', 'Chemical') :: ['cholesterol'] @entity301 :: ('MESH:D003327', 'Disease') :: ['coronary heart disease']
@entity301 :: (MESH:D003327,Disease) :: ['coronary heart disease']
