This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Weinehall, L. Articles by Wall, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Weinehall, L. Articles by Wall, S. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Different outcomes for different interventions with different focus!— A cross-country comparison of community interventions in rural Swedish and US populations

Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, UmeÅÅUniversity, Umeå, Sweden, Lars.Weinehall{at}epiph.umu.se

C. Lewis

The Mary Imogene Bassett Research Institute, Cooperstown, New York, USA

A.N. Nafziger

The Mary Imogene Bassett Research Institute, Cooperstown, New York, USA, Clinical Pharmacology Research Center & Department of Medicine, Bassett Healthcare, Cooperstown, New York, USA

P.L. Jenkins

The Mary Imogene Bassett Research Institute, Cooperstown, New York, USA

T.A. Erb

The Mary Imogene Bassett Research Institute, Cooperstown, New York, USA

T.A. Pearson

Department of Community & Preventive Medicine, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, USA

S. Wall

Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, UmeÅÅUniversity, Umeå, Sweden

Objectives: There is a need among healthcare providers to acquire more knowledge about small-scale and low budget community intervention programmes. This paper compares risk factor outcomes in Swedish and US intervention programmes for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The aim was to explore how different intervention programme profiles affect outcome.

Methods: Using a quasi-experimental design, trends in risk factors and estimated CVD risk in two intervention areas (Norsjö, Sweden and Otsego- Schoharie County, New York state) are compared with those in reference areas (Northern Sweden region and Herkimer County, New York state) using serial cross-sectional studies and panel studies.

Results: The programmes were able to achieve significant changes in CVD risk factors that the local communities recognized as major concerns: changing eating habits in the Swedish population and reducing smoking in the US population. For the Swedish cross-sectional follow-up study cholesterol reduction was 12%, compared to 5% in the reference population ( p for trend differences < 0.000) . The significantly higher estimated CVD risk (as assessed by risk scores) at baseline in the intervention population was below that of the Swedish reference population after 5 years of intervention. The Swedish panel study provided the same results. In the US, both the serial cross-sectional and panel studies showed a >10% decline in smoking prevalence in the intervention population, while it increased slightly in the reference population. When pooling the serial cross-sectional studies the estimated risk reduction (using the Framingham risk equation) was significantly greater in the intervention populations compared to the reference populations.

Conclusions: The overall pattern of risk reduction is consistent and suggests that the two different models of rural county intervention can contribute to significant risk reduction. The Swedish programme had its greatest effect on reduction of serum cholesterol levels whereas the US programme had its greatest effect on smoking prevention and cessation. These outcomes are consistent with programmatic emphases. Socially less privileged groups in these rural areas benefited as much or more from the interventions as those with greater social resources.

Key Words: cardiovascular disease • community intervention programmes • cross-sectional studies • panel studies.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				Bibliography Scand J Public Health, October 1, 2003; 31(5): 85 - 91. [PDF]