Search

Background: Selective prevention of cardiometabolic diseases (CMD)—that is, preventive measures specifically targeting the high-risk population—may represent the most effective approach for mitigating rising CMD rates. Objectives: To develop a universal concept of selective CMD prevention that can guide implementation within European primary care. Methods: Initially, 32 statements covering different aspects of selective CMD prevention programmes were identified based on a synthesis of evidence from two systematic literature reviews and surveys conducted within the SPIMEU project. The Rand/UCLA appropriateness method (RAM) was used to find consensus on these statements among an international panel consisting of 14 experts. Before the consensus meeting, statements were rated by the experts in a first round. In the next step, during a face-to-face meeting, experts were provided with the results of the first rating and were then invited to discuss and rescore the statements in a second round. Results: In the outcome of the RAM procedure, 28 of 31 statements were considered appropriate and three were rated uncertain. The panel deleted one statement. Selective CMD prevention was considered an effective approach for preventing CMD and a proactive approach was regarded as more effective compared to case-finding alone. The most efficient method to implement selective CMD prevention systematically in primary care relies on a stepwise approach: initial risk assessment followed by interventions if indicated. Conclusion: The final set of statements represents the key characteristics of selective CMD prevention and can serve as a guide for implementing selective prevention actions in European primary care.

Background: Cardiometabolic diseases (CMDs) are the number one cause of death. Selective prevention of CMDs by general practitioners (GPs) could help reduce the burden of CMDs. This measure would entail the identification of individuals at high risk of CMDs-but currently asymptomatic-followed by interventions to reduce their risk. No data were available on the attitude and the extent to which European GPs have incorporated selective CMD prevention into daily practice. Methods: A survey among 575 GPs from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and Sweden was conducted between September 2016 and January 2017, within the framework of the SPIMEU-project. Results: On average, 71% of GPs invited their patients to attend for CMD risk assessment. Some used an active approach (47%) while others used an opportunistic approach (53%), but these values differed between countries. Most GPs considered selective CMD prevention as useful (82%) and saw it as part of their normal duties (84%). GPs who did find selective prevention useful were more likely to actively invite individuals compared with their counterparts who did not find prevention useful. Most GPs had a disease management programme for individuals with risk factor(s) for cardiovascular disease (71%) or diabetes (86%). Conclusions: Although most GPs considered selective CMD prevention as useful, it was not universally implemented. The biggest challenge was the process of inviting individuals for risk assessment. It is important to tailor the implementation of selective CMD prevention in primary care to the national context, involving stakeholders at different levels.

Background: Cardiometabolic diseases (CMDs) are the number one cause of death. Selective prevention of CMDs by general practitioners (GPs) could help reduce the burden of CMDs. This measure would entail the identification of individuals at high risk of CMDs-but currently asymptomatic-followed by interventions to reduce their risk. No data were available on the attitude and the extent to which European GPs have incorporated selective CMD prevention into daily practice.Methods: A survey among 575 GPs from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and Sweden was conducted between September 2016 and January 2017, within the framework of the SPIMEU-project.Results: On average, 71% of GPs invited their patients to attend for CMD risk assessment. Some used an active approach (47%) while others used an opportunistic approach (53%), but these values differed between countries. Most GPs considered selective CMD prevention as useful (82%) and saw it as part of their normal duties (84%). GPs who did find selective prevention useful were more likely to actively invite individuals compared with their counterparts who did not find prevention useful. Most GPs had a disease management programme for individuals with risk factor(s) for cardiovascular disease (71%) or diabetes (86%).Conclusions: Although most GPs considered selective CMD prevention as useful, it was not universally implemented. The biggest challenge was the process of inviting individuals for risk assessment. It is important to tailor the implementation of selective CMD prevention in primary care to the national context, involving stakeholders at different levels.