Why the study?
Is a mass strategy more effective than high-risk strategies for the prevention of high blood pressure and its complications?
Is a mass strategy more effective than high-risk strategies for the prevention of high blood pressure and its complications?
A mass strategy for blood pressure prevention, such as broad-based dietary changes, is argued to be more effective than targeting high-risk individuals.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Should not yet change practice favoring high-risk strategies; leaves open whether mass approaches are superior in trials.
A mass strategy for the prevention of high blood pressure and its complications is likely to be more effective than high-risk strategies for several reasons: there is no practicable way of identifying in advance a large proportion of future hypertensives; a minority of hypertensive complications occur in individuals with pressures high enough to warrant treatment; and treatment has little or no effect on the incidence of the major hypertensive complication, coronary heart attacks. The effect of a broad-based dietary prevention programme is not proven, but such a strategy offers a reasonable prospect of a broad range of benefits, and is likely to prove acceptable to the general public. A family-based approach may contribute to aetiological research, and make pragmatic sense in clinical practice, but does not provide a scientific basis for a high-risk strategy of prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Graham Watt (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: