Impact on clinical practice of the Joint British Societies' cardiovascular risk assessment tools

International Journal of Clinical Practice

Volumn 63, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1683-1692

  Kirby, M ^a   MacHen, I ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALCULATOR; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; GENERAL PRACTICE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; LIFESTYLE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; NURSE; NURSE PRACTITIONER; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK MANAGEMENT; THERMOMETER; TRAINING;

ADULT; AGED; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; ENGLAND; FOCUS GROUPS; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NURSE PRACTITIONERS; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 70449574348     PISSN: 13685031     EISSN: 17421241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.02201.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Allender S, Peto V, Scarborough P, Kaur A, Rayner M. Coronary Heart Disease Statistics. London : British Heart Foundation, 2008.
2. Anderson KM, Odell PM, Wilson PW, Kannel WB. Cardiovascular disease risk profiles. Am Heart J 1991 121 : 293 298.
3. D'agostino RB Sr., Grundy S, Sullivan LM, Wilson P, CHD Risk Prevention Group. Validation of Framingham coronary heart disease risk prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation. JAMA 2001 286 : 180 187.
4. Emberson JR, Whincup PH, Morris RW, Walker M. Re-assessing the contribution of serum total cholesterol, blood pressure and cigarette smoking to the aetiology of coronary heart disease: impact of regression dilution bias. Eur Heart J 2003 24 : 1719 1726.
5. University of Leicester. Handbook for Vascular Risk Assessment, Risk Reduction and Risk Management: A Report Prepared for the UK National Screening Committee. 2008. http://www.screening.nhs.uk/getdata.php?id=8706 (accessed June 2009).
6. Department of Health. Putting Prevention First - Vascular Checks: Risk Assessment and Management. 2008. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/ Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH-083822 (accessed June 2009).
7. JointBritish Societies. JBS 2: guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice. Heart 2005 91 (Suppl 5 v1 52.
8. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psych 2006 3 : 77 101.
9. Brindle P, Beswick A, Fahey T, Ebrahim S. Accuracy and impact of risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review. Heart 2006 92 : 1752 1759.
10. Vernon SW. Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening behaviours: a review. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999 25 : 101 119.
11. Edwards A, Hood K, Matthews E et al. The effectiveness of one-to-one risk-communication interventions in health care: a systematic review. Med Decis Making 2000 20 : 290 297.
12. Grover SA, Lowensteyn I, Joseph L et al. Patient knowledge of coronary risk profile improves the effectiveness of dyslipidemia therapy: the CHECK-UP study: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2007 167 : 2296 2303.
13. NHS centre for reviews and dissemination. Bulletin on the Effectiveness of Health Service Interventions for Decision Makers. Effective Health Care: Getting Evidence into Practice. 1999 5 (1) ISSN: 0965-0288. http://www.york.ac. uk/inst/crd/EHC/ehc51.pdf (accessed June 2009).
14. Irwig L, McCaffery K, Salkeld G, Bossuyt P. Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation. BMJ 2006 332 : 1148 1150.
15. Austoker J. Gaining informed consent for screening. Is difficult - but many misconceptions need to be undone. BMJ 1999 319 : 722 723.
16. Southard BH, Southard DR, Nuckolls J. Clinical trial of an internet-based case management system for secondary prevention of heart disease. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 2003 23 : 341 348.
17. Hoffmann T, Russell T, McKenna K. Producing computer-generated tailored written information for stroke patients and their carers: system development and preliminary evaluation. Int J Med Inform 2004 73 : 751 758.
18. Brug J, Campbell M, van Assema P. The application and impact of computer-generated personalised nutrition education: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 1999 36 : 145 156.
19. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes; a review. CMAJ 1995 152 : 1423 1433.
20. Lorig K. Partnerships between expert patients and physicians. Lancet 2002 359 : 814 815.
21. British Medical Association. NHS Employers. Revisions to the GMS Contract 2006-07. Delivering Investment in General Practice. 2006. http://www. nhsemployers.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Revisions-to-the-GMS-contract-full-CD- 120209.pdf (accessed June 2009).
22. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical Guideline 67: Lipid Modification. 2008. http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/ CG67NICEguideline.pdf (accessed June 2009).
23. Bauman AE, Fardy JH, Harris PG. Getting it right: why bother with patient-centred care? Med J Aust 2003 179 : 253 256.
24. Little P, Everitt H, Williamson I et al. Preferences of patients for patient centred approach to consultation in primary care: observational study. BMJ 2002 284 : 468 472.
25. Wiesemann A, Ludt S, Szecsenyi J, Scheuermann W, Scheidt R. Cardiovascular risk factors and motivation for a healthy life-style in a German community - results of the GP-based Oestringen study. Patient Educ Couns 2004 56 : 40 7.
26. Meland E. The importance of self-efficacy in cardiovascular risk factor change. Scand J Public Health 1999 27 : 11 7.