Maastricht University, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Department of General Practice, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Prev Med. 2010 Jan-Feb;50(1-2):35-44. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2009.11.007. Epub 2009 Nov 26.
To determine if lifestyle improved at a short term through an intervention to involve patients in cardiovascular risk management by the practice nurse.
The IMPALA study (2006, the Netherlands) was a cluster-randomised controlled trial involving 25 general practices and 615 patients who were eligible for cardiovascular risk management. The intervention consisted of (1) individual 10-year cardiovascular risk assessment, (2) risk communication, (3) use of a decision aid and (4) adapted motivational interviewing, applied by practice nurses in two consultations. Outcomes were smoking, alcohol, diet, physical activity and the secondary outcomes risk perception, anxiety, confidence about the decision and satisfaction with the communication, measured at baseline and after 12 weeks.
Patients of both groups improved their lifestyle, but no relevant significant differences between the groups were found. Intervention group patients improved in terms of the appropriateness of risk perception, although not significantly. Intervention group patients improved significantly in terms of appropriateness of anxiety and were more satisfied with the communication compared to control group patients.
The intervention seems to have improved the patients' risk perception, anxiety and satisfaction with the communication, which are important conditions for shared decision making. However, we found no additional effect of the intervention on lifestyle.
通过实践护士参与心血管风险管理的干预措施,确定短期生活方式是否有所改善。
IMPALA 研究(2006 年,荷兰)是一项涉及 25 家普通诊所和 615 名符合心血管风险管理条件的患者的集群随机对照试验。干预措施包括:(1)个人 10 年心血管风险评估;(2)风险沟通;(3)使用决策辅助工具;(4)由实践护士在两次咨询中应用适应性动机访谈。在基线和 12 周后测量吸烟、饮酒、饮食、体育活动和次要结局风险感知、焦虑、对决策的信心和对沟通的满意度。
两组患者的生活方式都有所改善,但组间没有发现相关的显著差异。干预组患者在风险感知的适当性方面有所改善,尽管不显著。与对照组患者相比,干预组患者在焦虑的适当性方面有显著改善,并且对沟通的满意度更高。
该干预措施似乎改善了患者的风险感知、焦虑和对沟通的满意度,这是共同决策的重要条件。然而,我们没有发现干预对生活方式的额外影响。