|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Different outcomes for different interventions with different focus!— A cross-country comparison of community interventions in rural Swedish and US populations
L. Weinehall
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.
References
- Carleton RA, Lasater TM, Assaf AR, Feldman HA, McKinlay S., and the Pawtucket Heart Program Writing Group. The Pawtucket Heart Health Program: community changes in cardiovascular risk factors and projected disease risk. Am J Public Health 1995; 85: 777-85.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Fortmann SP, Flora JA, Winkleby MA, Schooler C., Taylor CB, Farquhar JW Community intervention trials: refl ections on the Stanford Five-City Project Experience. Am J Epidemiol 1995; 142: 576-86.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Luepker RV, Murray DM, Jacobs DRJr, Mittelmark MB, Bracht N., Carlaw R., et al. Community education for cardiovascular disease prevention: risk factor changes in the Minnesota Heart Health Program. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 1383-93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Puska P., Tuomilehto J., Nissanen A., Vartainen E. The North Karelia Project: 20 year results and experiences. Helsinki: Helsinki University Printing House, 1995.
- Stone EJ, Pearson TA, Fortmann SP, McKinlay JB Community-based prevention trials: Challenges and directions for public health practice, policy, and research. Ann Epidemiol 1997; S7: S113-S120.[Web of Science]
- Att förebygga sjukdom i hjärta och kärl genom befolkningsinriktade program—en systematisk litteraturöversikt. (Preventing CVD through community intervention programs—a systematic literature review.) SBU report No. 134. Stockholm: SBU, 1997.
- Nafziger A., Weinehall L., Lewis C., Jenkins PL, Erb TA, Pearson TA, et al. Design issues in the combination of international data from two rural community cardiovascular intervention programs. Scand J Public Health 2001; 29 (Suppl 56): 33-39.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Eriksson CG, Granvik M., Kindblad I., Lindgren G., Nyström L., Rosen M., et al. Health problems in a Swedish county—what can we learn from official sources? Soc Sci Med 1981; 15C: 143-51.
- Brännström I., Rosen M., Wall S., Weinehall L. Local health planning and intervention—the case of a Swedish municipality. Scand J Prim Health Care 1988; Suppl 1:57-64.
- Weinehall L., Westman G., Hellsten G., Boman K., Hallmans G., Pearson TA, et al. Shifting the distribution of risk: Results of a community intervention in a Swedish programme for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1999; 53: 243-50.[Abstract]
- Brännström I., Weinehall L., Persson LÅ, Wester PO, Wall S. Changing social patterns of risk factors for cardiovascular disease in a Swedish community intervention project. Int J Epidemiol 1993; 22: 1026-37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Brännström I., Lindblad I-B. Mass communication and health promotion: the power of the media and public opinion. Health Commun 1994; 6: 21-36.[Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Huhtasaari F., Asplund K., Stegmayr B., Lundberg V., Wester PO Trends in cardiovascular risk factors in the Northern Sweden MONICA Study: who are the winners? Cardiovasc Risk Factors 1993; 3: 215-21.
- Jenkins PL, Weinehall L., Erb TA, Lewis C., Nafziger AN, Pearson TA, et al. The Norsjö-Cooperstown healthy heart project: A case study combining data from different studies without the use of meta-analysis. Scand J Public Health 2001; 29 (Suppl 56).
- Nafziger A., Erb TA, Jenkins PL, Pearson TA, Lewis C. The Otsego-Schoharie healthy heart program: prevention of cardiovascular disease in the rural US. Scand J Public Health 2001; 29 (Suppl 56).
- Waksberg J. Sampling methods for random digit dialing. J Am Stat Assoc 1978; 73: 40-6.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Kish L. A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household. J Am Stat Assoc 1944; 44: 380-1.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
- Bowlin SJ, Morrill BD, Nafziger AN, Jenkins PL, Lewis C., Pearson TA Validity of cardiovascular disease risk factors assessed by telephone survey: the Behavioral Risk Factor Survey. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 561-71.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Goodman S, editor. Burrelle's New York media directory. Livingston, NJ: Burrelle's Information Services, 1996.
- High blood pressure program module and training guide. New York: American Heart Association, New York State Affiliate, 1986.
- SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT ® User's Guide, Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1989.
- Kannel WB, McGee FD, Gordon T. A general cardiovascular risk profile. The Framingham Study. Am J Cardiol 1976; 38: 46-51.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Vartiainen E., Puska P., Pekkanen J., Tuomilehto J., Jousilahti P. Changes in risk factors explain changes in mortality from ischaemic heart disease in Finland. Br Med J 1994;309:23-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Lachin JM Introduction to sample size determination and power analysis for clinical trials. Control Clinical Trials 1981; 2: 93-113.
- Weinehall L. Partnership for health: On the role of primary health care in a community intervention programme. Umeå University Medical Dissertations New Series No. 531. Umeå, Sweden: Umeå University, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, and Department of Family Medicine, 1997.
Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 29, No. 56 suppl,
46-58 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/14034948010290021801
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
Bibliography
Scand J Public Health,
November 1, 2003;
31(61_suppl):
85 - 91.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
