Why the study?
Does a patient-centred, self-directive intervention improve coronary heart disease risk compared to conventional care in men with high CHD risk?
Does a patient-centred, self-directive intervention improve coronary heart disease risk compared to conventional care in men with high CHD risk?
A patient-centred, self-directive intervention is as efficacious as conventional general practice care in reducing coronary heart disease risk in high-risk men.
Patient-centred intervention matches conventional care; confirms equivalent CHD risk reduction in high-risk men.
OBJECTIVES: 1. To compare a patient-centred, self-directive intervention with conventional care; 2. To evaluate longitudinal within-group changes of coronary heart disease risk. METHODS: Risk factor changes were evaluated in 110 men with high coronary heart disease risk attending a one year intervention study in general practice. The 22 participating general practice centres were randomly allocated to follow either a patient-centred, self-directive intervention or a conventional approach. RESULTS: No significant between-group differences were found in any single risk factor or in the combined risk of coronary heart disease. The improvement of total risk from screening time to conclusion of the study corresponded with changes of relative risks of CHD to 0.64 (95% CI: 0.54-0.77) and 0.65 (0.54-0.77) in the patient-centred, self-directive and the conventional care group respectively (p < 0.0001 in both groups). CONCLUSION: Everyday general practice clinical work seems as efficacious as a specific intervention method based on currently advocated behaviour change principles.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meland et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: