Cited by 122Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsHealthcare Systems and Public Health

Joint analysis of three U.S. community intervention trials for reduction of cardiovascular disease risk

Open access
Winkleby, Marilyn A., Feldman, Henry A., Murray, David M.·1997·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

During the 1980s three comprehensive community-based heart disease prevention trials were conducted in the United States. The Stanford Five-City Project, Minnesota Heart Health Program, and Pawtucket Heart Health Program involved 12 cities; six received a 5-8 year multifactorial risk reduction program. This analysis pools data from the three studies to delineate the common intervention effects with greater sample size and power than could be attained by the single studies. Time trends were estimated for cigarette smoking, blood pressure, total cholesterol, body mass index, and coronary heart disease mortality risk in women and men aged 25-64 years. The joint estimates of intervention effect were in the expected direction in nine of 12 gender-specific comparisons; however, these were not statistically significant. The results illustrate the analytic challenges of evaluating community-based prevention trials and point to the smaller than expected net differences, rather than small sample size, as the reason for few statistically significant effects in the three U.S. prevention trials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00020-6

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Similar media and education strategies in the Minnesota Heart Health Program and the Pawtucket Heart Health Program did not lead to significant improvements in cardiovascular risk factors or events when compared with control communities.

    “In contrast, similar media and education strategies in the Minnesota Heart Health Program and the Pawtucket Heart Health Program did not lead to significant improvements in cardiovascular risk factors or events when compared with control communities.61–63”
  • In the Minnesota and Pawtucket studies, secular improvements in risk factors were also seen in the control communities, perhaps in response to similar national campaigns targeting these risk factors; these trends may have limited detection of any added effects of the community-level interventions.

    “In the latter studies, secular improvements in risk factors were also seen in the control communities, perhaps in response to similar national campaigns targeting these risk factors; these trends may have limited detection of any added effects of the community-level interventions.”
  • Intensive community-level media and education interventions that targeted physical activity as part of a comprehensive set of health factors and behaviors produced mixed results, with benefits on risk factors in 1 study but no clear benefits in the other 2 studies compared with secular trends.

    “These interventions produced mixed results, with benefits on risk factors seen in 1 study49 but without clear benefits in the other 2 studies, as compared with secular trends.61,62”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Winkleby, M. A., Feldman, H. A., & Murray, D. M.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Winkleby, Marilyn A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-06
Volume
50
Issue
6
Pages
645-658
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2099139180
Cited by
122
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
9.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01hl023629-15, 5r01hl025523-13, 5r01hl021906-19)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL-23629, HL21906, HL 25523)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Healthcare Systems and Public Health
Keywords
cardiovascular disease prevention, community-based intervention, pooled analysis, smoking, blood pressure, total cholesterol, body mass index, coronary heart disease mortality, middle-aged adults, intervention effect estimation, temporal trends
MeSH terms
Blood Pressure, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cholesterol, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Education, Humans, Male, Risk, Risk Factors, Smoking, Socioeconomic Factors, Time Factors, United States, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Body Mass Index, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review