Multiple health behaviour change interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Alageel, S., Gulliford, M.C., McDermott, L., Wright, A.J.
Journal: BMJ Open
Publication Date: 01/06/2017
Volume: 7
Issue: 6
eISSN: 2044-6055
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015375
Abstract:Background It is uncertain whether multiple health behaviour change (MHBC) interventions are effective for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in primary care. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of MHBC interventions on CVD risk and CVD risk factors; the study also evaluated associations of theoretical frameworks and intervention components with intervention effectiveness. Methods The search included randomised controlled trials of MHBC interventions aimed at reducing CVD risk in primary prevention population up to 2017. Theoretical frameworks and intervention components were evaluated using standardised methods. Meta-analysis with stratification and meta-regression were used to evaluate intervention effects. Results We identified 31 trials (36 484 participants) with a minimum duration of 12 months follow-up. Pooled net change in systolic blood pressure (16 trials) was-1.86 (95% CI-3.17 to-0.55; p=0.01) mm Hg; diastolic blood pressure (15 trials),-1.53 (-2.43 to-0.62; p=0.001) mm Hg; body mass index (14 trials),-0.13 (-0.26 to-0.01; p=0.04) kg/m2; serum total cholesterol (14 trials),-0.13 (-0.19 to-0.07; p<0.001) mmol/L. There was no significant association between interventions with a reported theoretical basis and improved intervention outcomes. No association was observed between intervention intensity (number of sessions and intervention duration) and intervention outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity for some risk factor analyses, leading to uncertain validity of some pooled net changes. Conclusions MHBC interventions delivered to CVD-free participants in primary care did not appear to have quantitatively important effects on CVD risk factors. Better reporting of interventions' rationale, content and delivery is essential to understanding their effectiveness.
Source: Scopus
Multiple health behaviour change interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Authors: Alageel, S., Gulliford, M.C., McDermott, L., Wright, A.J.
Journal: BMJ Open
Publication Date: 15/06/2017
Volume: 7
Issue: 6
Pages: e015375
eISSN: 2044-6055
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015375
Abstract:BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether multiple health behaviour change (MHBC) interventions are effective for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in primary care. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of MHBC interventions on CVD risk and CVD risk factors; the study also evaluated associations of theoretical frameworks and intervention components with intervention effectiveness. METHODS: The search included randomised controlled trials of MHBC interventions aimed at reducing CVD risk in primary prevention population up to 2017. Theoretical frameworks and intervention components were evaluated using standardised methods. Meta-analysis with stratification and meta-regression were used to evaluate intervention effects. RESULTS: We identified 31 trials (36 484 participants) with a minimum duration of 12 months follow-up. Pooled net change in systolic blood pressure (16 trials) was -1.86 (95% CI -3.17 to -0.55; p=0.01) mm Hg; diastolic blood pressure (15 trials), -1.53 (-2.43 to -0.62; p=0.001) mm Hg; body mass index (14 trials), -0.13 (-0.26 to -0.01; p=0.04) kg/m2; serum total cholesterol (14 trials), -0.13 (-0.19 to -0.07; p<0.001) mmol/L. There was no significant association between interventions with a reported theoretical basis and improved intervention outcomes. No association was observed between intervention intensity (number of sessions and intervention duration) and intervention outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity for some risk factor analyses, leading to uncertain validity of some pooled net changes. CONCLUSIONS: MHBC interventions delivered to CVD-free participants in primary care did not appear to have quantitatively important effects on CVD risk factors. Better reporting of interventions' rationale, content and delivery is essential to understanding their effectiveness.
Source: PubMed
Multiple health behaviour change interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors: Alageel, S., Gulliford, M.C., McDermott, L., Wright, A.J.
Journal: BMJ OPEN
Publication Date: 06/2017
Volume: 7
Issue: 6
ISSN: 2044-6055
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015375
Source: Web of Science
Multiple health behaviour change interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Authors: Alageel, S., Gulliford, M.C., McDermott, L., Wright, A.J.
Journal: BMJ open
Publication Date: 06/2017
Volume: 7
Issue: 6
Pages: e015375
eISSN: 2044-6055
ISSN: 2044-6055
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015375
Abstract:Background
It is uncertain whether multiple health behaviour change (MHBC) interventions are effective for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in primary care. A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the effectiveness of MHBC interventions on CVD risk and CVD risk factors; the study also evaluated associations of theoretical frameworks and intervention components with intervention effectiveness.Methods
The search included randomised controlled trials of MHBC interventions aimed at reducing CVD risk in primary prevention population up to 2017. Theoretical frameworks and intervention components were evaluated using standardised methods. Meta-analysis with stratification and meta-regression were used to evaluate intervention effects.Results
We identified 31 trials (36 484 participants) with a minimum duration of 12 months follow-up. Pooled net change in systolic blood pressure (16 trials) was -1.86 (95% CI -3.17 to -0.55; p=0.01) mm Hg; diastolic blood pressure (15 trials), -1.53 (-2.43 to -0.62; p=0.001) mm Hg; body mass index (14 trials), -0.13 (-0.26 to -0.01; p=0.04) kg/m2; serum total cholesterol (14 trials), -0.13 (-0.19 to -0.07; p<0.001) mmol/L. There was no significant association between interventions with a reported theoretical basis and improved intervention outcomes. No association was observed between intervention intensity (number of sessions and intervention duration) and intervention outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity for some risk factor analyses, leading to uncertain validity of some pooled net changes.Conclusions
MHBC interventions delivered to CVD-free participants in primary care did not appear to have quantitatively important effects on CVD risk factors. Better reporting of interventions' rationale, content and delivery is essential to understanding their effectiveness.Source: Europe PubMed Central