Key result
Targeted screening proves more cost-effective than mass screening, identifying ~84% of high-risk individuals.
Why the study?
It is unclear how best to identify individuals at highest global cardiovascular risk from the general population for primary prevention.
Do targeted screening strategies improve cost-effectiveness and coverage compared to mass screening for identifying individuals at high cardiovascular risk?
Population
3921 asymptomatic general population members aged 40-74 years from the Scottish Health Survey
Comparison
Mass screening vs targeted screening of deprived communities, family members, and combinations
Design
Cross-sectional survey with simulation models of screening strategies
Authors
Loading...
Should not yet change practice; cross-sectional data leave open need for prospective validation.
Cross-Sectional (n=3,921)
Do targeted screening strategies improve cost-effectiveness and coverage compared to mass screening for identifying individuals at high cardiovascular risk?
Targeted screening strategies focusing on deprived communities and family members are significantly more cost-effective than mass screening, identifying the vast majority of high-risk individuals with fewer resources.
Lawson et al. (2009) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular risk (n=3,921). Targeted screening strategies vs. Mass screening was evaluated on Identification of individuals at high risk of premature cardiovascular disease. Targeted screening of deprived communities and family members identified 84% of high-risk individuals by screening 41% of the population, proving more efficient and less costly than mass screening.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: