Titre :
|
Selective opportunistic screening for hypercholesterolemia in primary care practice. (1998)
|
Auteurs :
|
B. HUTCHISON ;
S. BIRCH ;
C.E. EVANS ;
J. FRANK ;
L.J. GOLDSMITH ;
B.A. MARKHAM ;
M. PATERSON ;
Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis. McMaster University. Hamilton. ON. CAN ;
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. McMaster University. Hamilton. ON. USA ;
Department of Family Medicine. McMaster University. Hamilton. ON. USA
|
Type de document :
|
Article
|
Dans :
|
Journal of clinical epidemiology (vol. 51, n° 10, 1998)
|
Pagination :
|
817-825
|
Langues:
|
Anglais
|
Mots-clés :
|
Dépistage
;
Programme santé
;
Epidémiologie
;
Evaluation
;
Homme
;
Canada
;
Amérique
;
Lipide
;
Métabolisme [pathologie]
;
Amérique du Nord
|
Résumé :
|
[BDSP. Notice produite par INIST Y1CR0xW4. Diffusion soumise à autorisation]. Objectives : To assess the performance of selective opportunistic screening in a primary care group practice. Design : Cross-sectional survey of coronary heart disease risk factors and retrospective chart audit of cholesterol testing. Setting : Capitation-funded primary care group practice in Ontario, Canada. Subjects : 7785 enrolled patients between the ages of 20 and 69 years. Intervention : Protocol-based selective opportunistic screening program for hypercholesterolemia of 45 months duration. Main Outcome Measures : Targeting (proportion of screening tests that were appropriate), coverage (proportion of those meeting screening criteria who had a screening test performed), over-screening (proportion of those not meeting screening criteria who had a screening test performed), and screening ratio (likelihood that a screening test was performed on an individual who met screening criteria rather than one who failed to meet screening criteria). Results : 64.7% of patients tested met the practice criteria for screening. 37.7% of patients who met the practice screening criteria were tested and 24.9% of those not meeting practice screening criteria had a cholesterol test performed. The screening ratio was 1.52. Conclusion : Our findings bring into question the effectiveness of opportunistic approaches to preventive care.
|