BMJ 2003;326:1122-1123 (24 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7399.1122
Paper
Participation in screening for cardiovascular risk by people with schizophrenia or similar mental illnesses: cross sectional study in general practice
D P J Osborn, MRC research fellow1,
M B King, professor1,
I Nazareth, professor2
1 Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Sciences, University College London,
London NW3 2PF,
2 Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College
London
Correspondence to: D P J Osborn
dosborn{at}rfc.ucl.ac.uk
Introduction
People with severe mental illnesses are at increased risk for
physical
illness, including cardiovascular
disease.
1
2 Guidance
from the
National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommends
monitoring of
cardiovascular risk factors in such patients
and research into relevant
interventions.
3
Possible causes
of this morbidity include diet, smoking, and drug treatment.
Health professionals may be less inclined to manage physical
health,
2 and
patients may be uninterested or poorly motivated.
Little evidence exists about
the acceptability of disease prevention
in people with serious mental illness.
We hypothesised that
such people would be less willing to participate in
assessment
of cardiovascular risk.
Participants, methods, and results
We invited patients from seven inner London general practices
to a
cardiovascular risk assessment at their practice. One
group comprised all
patients with a diagnosis of schizophrenia
or other chronic psychosis
(excluding primary mood disorders)
on their computer
record.
4 We used a
computer to randomly
choose a comparison group twice the size without these
diagnoses.
General practitioners wrote offering an appointment (including
a
blood test) with a researcher and explaining the 10 year
cardiovascular risk
score (calculated from age, sex, smoking
status, diabetic status, blood
pressure, and cholesterol concentrations).
Participants would receive all
results and interpretations.
We did not invite people under 30, over 75, or
with pre-existing
ischaemic heart disease, as risk scores do not apply.
We sent letters to 224 people with psychosis and 424 people without
psychosis. After a week we telephoned up to three times, once outside working
hours. If we did not make contact we sent a final invitation. We excluded from
the analysis people who had moved away, those we could not reach, and those
with no contact with the practice for three years, in accordance with previous
findings.5 This left
182 potential participants with psychosis and 313 without psychosis. Limited,
anonymous data on non-participants allowed examination of participation rates
(table). Last systolic blood
pressure was higher in participantsmean difference 9.0 mm Hg (95%
confidence interval 5.1 to 13.0).
We used logistic regression to examine the association between psychosis
(dependent variable) and participationcrude odds ratio 0.76 (0.53 to
1.10). Adjustment for age, sex, practice, and systolic blood pressure made
negligible difference to the association between psychosis and
participationadjusted odds ratio 0.74 (0.49 to 1.08). The psychosis
group consulted their general practitioner more oftenmean difference
1.8 (0.8 to 2.9) per year. Increased consultation rate also predicted
screening uptake in the total sample
(table). Adding consultation
rate to the model changed the odds ratio for participation in screening in the
psychosis group to 0.65 (0.43 to 0.98). No interaction terms (involving
psychosis and age, sex, consultation rate, or smoking) significantly enhanced
the logistic model.
Data were available on drug treatment in people with psychosis.
Participation was not significantly associated with being on depot drugs,
atypical antipsychotic agents, or higher doses (examined as percentage of
maximum daily dose and chlorpromazine equivalents).
Comment
Many people with psychosis accepted the offer of a cardiovascular
risk
assessment, providing a valuable opportunity for health
education and
promotion. Interest in risk assessment was greater
than we had assumed.
Participation rates were similar to those
in other community research
involving blood tests. Our negative
finding regarding drug types and doses
(proxies for severity
of illness) indicates that the psychosis group were
comparable
to people attending psychiatric outpatients. Psychosis was
associated with lower uptake of screening uptake only when we
included general
practice consultation rates in the analysis.
This may not be important in
practice. Absolute differences
in uptake of screening were small. Any
reluctance to accept
health screening in the psychosis group was offset by
increased
opportunities provided by more frequent attendance. The smaller
subgroup with psychosis who rarely consult a general practitioner
will
obviously be more difficult to screen, warranting assertive
efforts regarding
their physical health, perhaps in cooperation
with other more involved
agencies.
We are grateful to all the participants, their general practitioners,
and
practice staff.
Contributors: All authors developed the hypotheses, designed the methods,
and contributed to writing the paper. MBK and IN supervised the study. DPJO
carried out the study; collected, entered, and analysed the data; and wrote
the initial draft. DPJO is the guarantor of the study.
Funding: DPJO was funded by an MRC research fellowship in health services
research. Additional funding from the North Central Thames Primary Care
Research Network.
Competing interests: None declared.
Ethical approval: Local research ethics committees of the Royal Free
Hospital and Camden and Islington Community NHS Trust. All participants
provided informed consent. Limited anonymous data obtained on
non-participants.
References
- Phelan M, Stradins L, Morrison S. Physical health of people with
severe mental illness. BMJ
2001;322:
443-4.[Free Full Text]
- Osborn DPJ. The poor physical health of people with mental illness.
West J Med
2001;175:
329-32.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Schizophrenia: core
interventions in the treatment and management of schizophrenia in primary and
secondary care. London: NICE, 2002.
www.nice.org.uk/Docref.asp?d=42460
(accessed 4 Feb 2003).
- Nazareth I, King M, Haines A, Rangel L, Myers S. Accuracy of
diagnosis of psychosis on general practice computer system.
BMJ 1993;307:
32-4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Yardley L, Owen N, Nazareth I, Luxon L. Prevalence and
presentations of dizziness in a general practice community sample of working
age people. Br J Gen Pract
1998;48:
1131-5.[Web of Science][Medline]
(Accepted February 11, 2003)

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Hippisley-Cox, J., Parker, C., Coupland, C., Vinogradova, Y.
(2007). Inequalities in the primary care of patients with coronary heart disease and serious mental health problems: a cross-sectional study. Heart
93: 1256-1262
[Abstract]
[Full text]
-
Roberts, L., Roalfe, A., Wilson, S., Lester, H.
(2007). Physical health care of patients with schizophrenia in primary care: a comparative study. Fam Pract
24: 34-40
[Abstract]
[Full text]
-
Killaspy, H.
(2006). Psychiatric out-patient services: origins and future. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat.
12: 309-319
[Abstract]
[Full text]
-
Werneke, U., Horn, O., Maryon-Davis, A., Wessely, S., Donnan, S., McPherson, K.
(2006). Uptake of screening for breast cancer in patients with mental health problems.. J. Epidemiol. Community Health
60: 600-605
[Abstract]
[Full text]
-
OSBORN, D. P. J., NAZARETH, I., KING, M. B.
(2006). Risk for coronary heart disease in people with severe mental illness: Cross-sectional comparative study in primary care. Br. J. Psychiatry
188: 271-277
[Abstract]
[Full text]
Rapid Responses:
Read all Rapid Responses
- Wecome article to bury stereotype.
- Lesley M Roberts, et al.
bmj.com, 4 Jun 2003
[Full text]
- Recruiting psychiatric patients for studies
- Paul J Whelan, et al.
bmj.com, 22 Aug 2003
[Full text]