Skip Navigation



British Medical Bulletin Advance Access published online on March 5, 2007

British Medical Bulletin, doi:10.1093/bmb/ldm002
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
81-82/1/65    most recent
ldm002v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Chauhan, U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Chauhan, U.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care

Umesh Chauhan*

National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, The University of Manchester, 5th Floor, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

* Correspondence to: Umesh Chauhan, National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, The University of Manchester, 5th Floor, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. E-mail: umesh.chauhan{at}manchester.ac.uk

Since the publication of the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease, there has been a move towards primary disease prevention with a greater focus on an individual's absolute risk.

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews of the evidence for primary prevention are incomplete and the current guidelines and policy have led to considerable confusion in clinical practice. There is an increased use of risk assessment tools but no effective method of reviewing current activity with the limited integration into the existing Quality Outcome Framework.

There is an inadequate evidence for some of the risk factors used to identify individuals at risk, the risk calculators used to quantify the degree of risk and the methods of communicating risk to patients are largely unproven or completely missing.

There is a need for a co-ordinated vascular disease prevention programme which can be applied at the individual and at the population level but is also amenable to evaluation.

Keywords: communication • CVD risk assessment • management and surveillance

Accepted for publication January 24, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.