Cited by 131Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsCardiac Health and Mental Health

Community Programs for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review

Pennant, M., Davenport, C., Bayliss, S., Greenheld, W., Marshall, T., Hyde, C.·2010·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

In this systematic review, the authors aimed to assess the effectiveness of community programs for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). They searched numerous electronic databases (CDSR, DARE, HTA, EED, and CENTRAL via the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, HMIC, and ASSIA) and relevant Web sites from January 1970 to mid-July 2008. Controlled studies of community programs for the primary prevention of CVD were included. Net changes in CVD risk factors were used to generate an overall index for net change in 10-year CVD risk. The authors identified 36 relevant community programs that took place between 1970 and 2008. These programs were multifaceted interventions employing combinations of media, screening, and counseling activities and environmental changes and were primarily evaluated using controlled before-after studies. In 7 studies, investigators reported changes in CVD/total mortality rates, and in 5 they reported net changes. In all cases, these net changes were positive but were largely nonsignificant. In 22 studies, investigators reported changes in physiologic CVD risk factors, and there was a positive trend in the calculated CVD risk score. The average net reduction in 10-year CVD risk was 0.65%. Community programs for CVD prevention appear to have generally achieved favorable changes in overall CVD risk and, with adaptation to current circumstances, deserve continued consideration as possible approaches to preventing CVD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/aje/kwq171

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 57 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pennant, M., Davenport, C., Bayliss, S., Greenheld, W., Marshall, T., & Hyde, C.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Pennant, M.
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2010-07-28
Volume
172
Issue
5
Pages
501-516
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2148624435
Cited by
131
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 23
FWCI
1.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
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 › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
Keywords
cardiovascular disease prevention, community-based intervention, primary prevention, cardiovascular risk factors, 10-year cardiovascular risk, multicomponent intervention, health screening, health counseling, environmental change, cardiovascular mortality, intervention effectiveness
MeSH terms
Blood Pressure, Cardiovascular Diseases, Community Health Services, Health Education, Health Promotion, Humans, Lipids, Primary Prevention, Risk Factors, Smoking

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