Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the opinions of primary health-care providers and patients regarding the use of the Healthy Heart Score 20-year cardiovascular disease risk assessment tool in the clinical setting.

Methods

Semi-structured in person or phone interviews among 20 patients with no self-reported cardiovascular disease diagnoses and 20 health-care providers in Central (Columbus) and Southeastern (Athens) regions of Ohio. The researchers independently coded transcribed interviews, discussed codes to resolve discrepancies, and agreed on common themes.

Results

Participants suggested ways to best utilize and improve the tool, including adding graphics for visual reference of serving size. Patients showed interest in cardiovascular disease primordial prevention and expressed willingness to take the assessment prior to seeing a health-care provider. Health-care providers said that they would recommend the assessment to their patients and would be willing to use the tool in their practice. Health-care providers stated few barriers to using the tool, yet discussed numerous challenges to successful primordial prevention.

Conclusions

Our findings support the utilization of the Healthy Heart Score as a cardiovascular disease primordial prevention tool in the clinical setting. Additional research implementing the tool into the clinical setting will provide deeper insight into how the tool can impact behavior change and cardiovascular disease prevention.

Keywords

lifestyle cardiovascular disease risk assessment qualitative study clinical setting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benjamin

Blaha

Chiuve

et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2017 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2017; 135: e146–e603.

Mozaffarian

Benjamin

et al. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics—2016 update. Circulation 2016; 133: 447–454.

Fryar

Chen

Prevalence of uncontrolled risk factors for cardiovascular disease: United States, 1999–2010. NCHS Data Brief 2012; 103: 1–8.

Johnston

Moreno

Foreyt

JP.

Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2014; 16: 457.

Patnode

Evans

Senger

et al. Behavioral counseling to promote a healthful diet and physical activity for cardiovascular disease prevention in adults without known cardiovascular disease risk factors: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2017; 318: 175–193.

Chen

Pei

Kuang

et al. Effect of lifestyle intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis. Metab Clin Exp 2015; 64: 338–347.

Robbins

Dietz

Bombard

et al. Lifestyle interventions for hypertension and dyslipidemia among women of reproductive age. Prev Chronic Dis 2011; 8: A123.

Elmer

Obarzanek

Vollmer

et al. Effects of comprehensive lifestyle modification on diet, weight, physical fitness, and blood pressure control: 18-month results of a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 485–495.

Weintraub

Daniels

Burke

et al. Value of primordial and primary prevention for cardiovascular disease. Circulation 2011; 124: 967.

10.

Magnussen

Koskinen

Juonala

et al. A diagnosis of the metabolic syndrome in youth that resolves by adult life is associated with a normalization of high carotid intima-media thickness and type 2 diabetes mellitus risk: the Bogalusa heart and cardiovascular risk in young Finns studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60: 1631–1639.

11.

Lloyd-Jones

Leip

Larson

et al. Prediction of lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease by risk factor burden at 50 years of age. Circulation 2006; 113: 791–798.

12.

Mosca

Linfante

Benjamin

et al. National study of physician awareness and adherence to cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. Circulation 2005; 111: 499–510.

13.

Chiuve

Cook

Shay

et al. Lifestyle‐based prediction model for the prevention of CVD: the Healthy Heart Score. J Am Heart Assoc 2014; 3: e000954.

14.

Sotos-Prieto

Mattei

et al. Association between a healthy heart score and the development of clinical cardiovascular risk factors among women: potential role for primordial prevention. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2016; 9: S77–S85.

15.

Moreno-Peral

Conejo-Cerón

Fernández

et al. Primary care patients’ perspectives of barriers and enablers of primary prevention and health promotion—a meta-ethnographic synthesis. PLoS One 2015; 10: e0125004.

16.

Saunders

Sim

Kingstone

et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant 2018; 52: 1893–1907.

17.

Cohen

Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968; 70: 213–220.

18.

Landis

Koch

GG.

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159–174.

19.

Trochim

Donnelly

Arora

Research methods: the essential knowledge base. 2nd ed. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2016.

20.

Guba

Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiry. Educ Commun Technol J 1981; 29: 75–91.

21.

Shenton

AK.

Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2004.

22.

Leung

Validity, reliability, and generalizability in qualitative research. J Family Med Prim Care 2015; 4: 324–327.

23.

Sullivan

Sargeant

Qualities of qualitative research: part I. J Grad Med Educ 2011; 3: 449–452.

24.

Golafshani

Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. Qualitat Rep 2003; 8: 597–606.

25.

Versluis

Papies

Marchiori

Preventing the pack size effect: exploring the effectiveness of pictorial and non-pictorial serving size recommendations. Appetite 2015; 87: 116–126.

26.

Faulkner

Livingstone

Pourshahidi

et al. An evaluation of portion size estimation aids: precision, ease of use and likelihood of future use. Public Health Nutr 2016; 19: 2377–2387.

27.

Ledikwe

Ello-Martin

Rolls

BJ.

Portion sizes and the obesity epidemic. J Nutr 2005; 135: 905–909.

28.

Gale

Greenfield

Gill

et al. Patient and general practitioner attitudes to taking medication to prevent cardiovascular disease after receiving detailed information on risks and benefits of treatment: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 2011; 12: 59.

29.

Redmond

Baer

Clark

et al. Sources of health information related to preventive health behaviors in a national study. Am J Prev Med 2010; 38: 620–627.e622.

30.

Wartella

Rideout

Montague

et al. Teens, health and technology: a national survey. Media Commun 2016; 4: 13–23.

31.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 2006; 18: 59–82.

32.

Hammick

Freeth

Koppel

et al. A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9. Med Teach 2007; 29: 735–751.

33.

Flinter

Hsu

Cromp

et al. Registered nurses in primary care: emerging new roles and contributions to team-based care in high-performing practices. J Ambul Care Manage 2017; 40: 287–296.

34.

Smolowitz

Speakman

Wojnar

et al. Role of the registered nurse in primary health care: meeting health care needs in the 21st century. Nurs Outlook 2015; 63: 130–136.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB

Assessing utility of a lifestyle-based tool in the clinical setting as a primordial prevention strategy: The Healthy Heart Score

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material