Show simple item record

dc.contributorUniversitat Ramon Llull. Facultat de Ciències de la Salut Blanquerna
dc.contributor.authorBarroso, María
dc.contributor.authorPérez Fernández, Sílvia
dc.contributor.authorVila, M. Mar
dc.contributor.authorZomeño, Dolors
dc.contributor.authorMartí Lluch, Ruth
dc.contributor.authorCordon, Ferran
dc.contributor.authorRamos, Rafel
dc.contributor.authorElosua Llanos, Roberto
dc.contributor.authorDegano, Irene R.
dc.contributor.authorFitó Colomer, Montserrat
dc.contributor.authorCabezas, Carmen
dc.contributor.authorSalvador i Castell, Gemma
dc.contributor.authorCastell, Conxa
dc.contributor.authorGrau, Maria
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-28T12:55:38Z
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-12T12:05:53Z
dc.date.available2019-05-28T12:55:38Z
dc.date.available2023-07-12T12:05:53Z
dc.date.created2017-11
dc.date.issued2018-05
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/782
dc.description.abstractBackground: The validity of a cardiovascular risk self-screening method was assessed. The results obtained for self-measurement of blood pressure, a point-of-care system’s assessment of lipid profile and glycated hemoglobin, and a self-administered questionnaire (sex, age, diabetes, tobacco consumption) were compared with the standard screening (gold standard) conducted by a health professional. Methods: Crossover clinical trial on a population-based sample from Girona (north-eastern Spain), aged 35–74, with no cardiovascular disease at recruitment. Participants were randomized to one of the two risk assessment sequences (standard screening followed by self-screening or vice versa). Cardiovascular risk was estimated with the Framingham-REGICOR function. Concordance between methods was estimated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were estimated, considering 5% cardiovascular risk as the cutoff point. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration #NCT02373319. Clinical Research Ethic Committee of the Parc de Salut Mar Registration #2014/5815/I. Results: The median cardiovascular risk in men was 2.56 (interquartile range: 1.42–4.35) estimated by standard methods and 2.25 (1.28–4.07) by self-screening with ICC=0.92 (95% CI: 0.90–0.93). In women, the cardiovascular risk was 1.14 (0.61–2.10) by standard methods and 1.10 (0.56–2.00) by self-screening, with ICC=0.89 (0.87–0.90). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the self-screening method were 0.74 (0.63–0.82), 0.97 (0.95–0.99), 0.86 (0.77–0.93), and 0.94 (0.91–0.96), respectively, in men. In women, these values were 0.50 (0.30–0.70), 0.99 (0.98–1), 0.81 (0.54–0.96), and 0.97 (0.95–0.99), respectively. Conclusion: The self-screening method for assessing cardiovascular risk provided similar results to the standard method. Self-screening had high clinical performance to rule out intermediate or high cardiovascular risk. Keywords: risk assessment, cardiovascular diseases, preventive medicine, public health, epidemiology, empowermenteng
dc.format.extent12 p.cat
dc.language.isoengcat
dc.publisherDove Medical Presscat
dc.relation.ispartofClinical epidemiology, 2018, vol. 10, p. 549-560cat
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
dc.rights© L'autor/a
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.sourceRECERCAT (Dipòsit de la Recerca de Catalunya)
dc.subject.otherAvaluació del risccat
dc.subject.otherSistema cardiovascular--Malalties--Prevenciócat
dc.titleValidity of a method for the self-screening of cardiovascular riskcat
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlecat
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioncat
dc.rights.accessLevelinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.embargo.termscapcat
dc.subject.udc616.1
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S158358cat


Files in this item

 

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Share on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on FacebookShare on TelegramShare on WhatsappPrint