Roberts A, Roberts P
Br J Gen Pract. 1998 Feb;48(427):967-70.
Large trials of primary care-based health promotion to modify coronary heart disease risks have shown only modest benefits. Could more intensive intervention, with doctors sharing with practice nurses in health promotion, produce better health outcomes in the context of the small family practice? How cost-effective might these interventions be?
To assess the cost-effectiveness of an intensive programme of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factor modification in a rural general practice in which doctors had a major input.
A longitudinal study of changes in risk factors in a group of adult patients identified as having one or more major CHD risk factor and monitored for one to seven years. Patients were recruited from and followed up in health promotion clinics, routine practice nurse appointments, or routine doctors' surgeries. All received the practice's routine interventions to modify risk, and changes in risk factors were recorded. Time spent by members of the primary health care team on CHD health promotion was recorded over a two-year period.
From a practice list of 2040, 760 patients with one or more CHD risk factors were identified and followed up over a mean of 3.61 years (range six months to seven years). Significant improvements in each of the risk factors occurred, except in body mass index (BMI). Mean Dundee risk scores fell from 7.4 to 5.7 (by 23.3%). The annual cost to the practice (including doctor/nurse/secretarial time plus sundry practice expenses and laboratory costs, but excluding drug costs) was 6000 pounds. Cost per coronary death prevented was calculated as approximately 10,000 pounds.
The results show an effect on risk factors broadly similar but slightly greater in magnitude than that achieved in the OXCHECK and British Family Heart Studies of nurse-delivered risk factor intervention in primary care. The results suggest that more intensive effort in lifestyle modification and health promotion, with more active involvement of doctors, could produce significant additional benefit. The cost-effectiveness of this approach compares favourably with many other accepted measures in coronary heart disease prevention.
以初级保健为基础的健康促进大型试验旨在降低冠心病风险,但仅显示出适度的益处。在小型家庭诊所中,医生与执业护士共同进行更强化的干预,能否产生更好的健康结果?这些干预措施的成本效益如何?
评估一项强化冠心病(CHD)风险因素干预计划在农村全科诊所的成本效益,该计划中医生发挥了主要作用。
对一组被确定患有一种或多种主要冠心病风险因素的成年患者进行为期一至七年的风险因素变化纵向研究。患者从健康促进诊所、常规执业护士预约或常规医生诊疗中招募并进行随访。所有患者均接受诊所的常规风险干预措施,并记录风险因素的变化。在两年期间记录初级卫生保健团队成员用于冠心病健康促进的时间。
从2040名患者名单中,识别出760名患有一种或多种冠心病风险因素的患者,并进行了平均3.61年(范围为6个月至7年)的随访。除体重指数(BMI)外,各风险因素均有显著改善。邓迪平均风险评分从7.4降至5.7(下降23.3%)。诊所的年度成本(包括医生/护士/秘书时间、杂项诊所费用和实验室成本,但不包括药品成本)为6000英镑。预防每例冠心病死亡的成本计算约为10000英镑。
结果显示,对风险因素的影响与初级保健中护士进行的风险因素干预的OXCHECK和英国家庭心脏研究中所取得的效果大致相似,但程度略大。结果表明,在生活方式改变和健康促进方面付出更多努力,医生更积极参与,可能会产生显著的额外益处。这种方法的成本效益与冠心病预防中的许多其他公认措施相比具有优势。