BMJ 2002;325:78-80 ( 13 July )

Primary care

Screening for cardiovascular risk: public health imperative or matter for individual informed choice?

Theresa M Marteau, professor of health psychology ^a, Ann Louise Kinmonth, professor of general practice ^b. 

^a Psychology and Genetics Research Group, King's College London, London SE1 9RT, ^b GP and Primary Care Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge CB2 2SR

Correspondence to: T M Marteau theresa.marteau@kcl.ac.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

The National Screening Committee has recommended a paradigm of informed choice for participants in all screening programmes. Theresa Marteau and Ann Louise Kinmonth examine the potential consequences of applying such a policy to screening for risk of coronary heart disease in primary care

Current recommendations for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease in groups at high risk depend on screening through primary care and provision of risk related advice or treatment.¹ Criticisms of these recommendations highlight the lack of evidence for the cost effectiveness of multiple risk factor interventions delivered through primary care. ^{2 3} We propose that this lack of effectiveness may, in part, reflect how people are invited for screening. The public health approach most often used focuses on maximising participation in screening rather than on informed participation. We consider here the implications of offering primary preventive services for cardiovascular disease within a framework of informed choice.

Table Removed (Available Only in the Full Text)

	Methods

We searched . . . [Full text of this article]

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

Relevant Articles

Estimating the high risk group for cardiovascular disease in the Norwegian HUNT 2 population according to the 2003 European guidelines: modelling study

Linn Getz, Johann A Sigurdsson, Irene Hetlevik, Anna Luise Kirkengen, Solfrid Romundstad, and Jostein Holmen
BMJ 2005 331: 551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Informed choice in screening
BMJ 2002 325: 0. [Full Text]

Primary prevention of coronary heart disease

Peter Brindle and Tom Fahey
BMJ 2002 325: 56-57. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Badger, S. A., O'Donnell, M. E., Sharif, M. A., Boyd, C. S., Hannon, R. J., Lau, L. L., Lee, B., Soong, C. V. (2008). Risk Factors for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and the Influence of Social Deprivation. ANGIOLOGY 59: 559-566 [Abstract]  
• Ononeze, V., Murphy, A. W, Byrne, M., Bradley, C., Macfarlane, A. (2006). Patients and health professionals' perspectives on the sociocultural influences on secondary cardiac behaviour: a qualitative study of the implications in policy and practice. Fam Pract 23: 587-596 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Young, A., Carr, G., Hunt, R., McCracken, W., Skipp, A., Tattersall, H. (2006). Informed Choice and Deaf Children: Underpinning Concepts and Enduring Challenges. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 11: 322-336 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Getz, L., Sigurdsson, J. A, Hetlevik, I., Kirkengen, A. L., Romundstad, S., Holmen, J. (2005). Estimating the high risk group for cardiovascular disease in the Norwegian HUNT 2 population according to the 2003 European guidelines: modelling study. BMJ 331: 551- [Abstract] [Full text]  
• van Bergen, J, Gotz, H M, Richardus, J H, Hoebe, C J P A, Broer, J, Coenen, A J T, for the PILOT CT study group, (2005). Prevalence of urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis increases significantly with level of urbanisation and suggests targeted screening approaches: results from the first national population based study in the Netherlands. Sex. Transm. Infect. 81: 17-23 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hargreaves, K., Stewart, R., Oliver, S. (2005). Newborn screening information supports public health more than informed choice. Health Education Journal 64: 110-119 [Abstract]  
• Edwards, A., Unigwe, S., Elwyn, G., Hood, K. (2003). Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review. BMJ 327: 703-709 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Getz, L., Sigurdsson, J. A, Hetlevik, I. (2003). Is opportunistic disease prevention in the consultation ethically justifiable?. BMJ 327: 498-500 [Full text]  
• Brindle, P., Fahey, T. (2002). Primary prevention of coronary heart disease. BMJ 325: 56-57 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Screening for cardiovascular disease; choice is irrelevant when screening is not worthwhile

David S Wald
bmj.com, 15 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Is binary risk the most relevant statistic?

Adam Jacobs
bmj.com, 17 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Risk screening is too imprecisise

Tim M Reynolds, et al.
bmj.com, 20 Jul 2002 [Full text]

Online poll

Find out more >>