Search

The main objective of this thesis was to improve cardiovascular risk assessment in primary care. Chapter 2 provides evidence that coded diagnosis from general practice electronic health records are a feasible and valid alternative to self-report to define diabetes cases in epidemiological studies. Based on the results of focus group discussions with research participants confronted with an incidental finding, as described in Chapter 3, we concluded that a detailed study protocol is needed on the disclosure of incidental findings before recruitment of participants. We gave several recommendations to improve the disclosure of incidental findings. Our findings in Chapter 4 suggest that it is important to inform the general practitioner and the research participants about the individual cardiovascular test results. Only participants with an estimated intermediate of high cardiovascular risk should receive a recommendation to consult their general practitioner. In Chapter 5, we concluded that inviting patients with overweight or obesity for cardiovascular risk assessment can help to identify a substantial additional group of patients at increased cardiovascular risk. In Chapter 6, we did not find evidence that cardiovascular risk assessment can be improved when non-invasive markers of hepatic steatosis are added to an established risk estimation system.

Purpose To explore the experiences and preferences of population‐based research participants to whom an incidental finding was communicated. Materials and Methods Of the 2580 participants of the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning of the abdomen, heart, and/or brain, an incidental finding with presumed health importance was disclosed to 56 (2%) participants. These participants were invited to discuss their experiences regarding the communication of the finding by the NEO research team in a focus group discussion. Transcripts of the discussions were analyzed using thematic content analysis with an open coding system. Results Twenty‐three persons participated in four discussions: 57% male; mean age 58 years; 74% findings were suspect for a malignancy. Overall, the participants were grateful for the disclosure of the incidental finding. They had assumed that any finding would be disclosed, and this was an important reason to participate in research. None regretted their informed consent to be notified about incidental findings. Disclosure of the finding had great impact on the lives of most participants. Difficulties with the transition from research participant to patient were frequently mentioned. Conclusion This study provides information to improve the communication of incidental findings by 1) giving clear information about which findings will be disclosed, and 2) demarcating the transition from research participant to patient, by making clear arrangements with medical specialists to guarantee careful follow‐up of the finding.

In contrast to structured, integrated risk assessment in primary care, unstructured risk factor screening outside primary care and corresponding recommendations to consult a general practitioner (GP) are often based on one abnormal value of a single risk factor. This study investigates the advantages and disadvantages of unstructured screening of blood pressure and cholesterol outside primary care.After the baseline visit of the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity study (population-based prospective cohort study in persons aged 45-65 years, recruited 2008-2012) all participants received a letter with results of blood pressure and cholesterol, and a recommendation to consult a GP if results were abnormal. Four years after the start of the study, participants received a questionnaire about the follow-up of their results.The study population consisted of 6343 participants, 48% men, mean age 56 years, mean body mass index 30 kg/m(2). Of all participants 66% had an abnormal result and, of these, 49% had a treatment indication based on the risk estimation system SCORE-NL 2006. Of the 25% of the participants who did not consult a GP, 40% had a treatment indication. Of the participants with an abnormal result 19% were worried, of whom 60% had no treatment indication.In this population 51% of the participants with an abnormal result had unnecessarily received a recommendation to consult a GP, and 10% were unnecessarily worried. GPs should be informed about the complete risk assessment, and only participants at intermediate or high risk should receive a recommendation to consult a GP.

Item does not contain fulltext 4 p.

Item does not contain fulltext Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen, 26 januari 2000 Promotores : Monnens, L.A.H., Schröder, C.H., Willems, J.L. 152 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 6 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 4 p.