Cited by 258Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionCardiac Health and Mental HealthNursing Roles and Practices

Secondary prevention in coronary heart disease: a randomised trial of nurse led clinics in primary care

Open access
Campbell, N C, Ritchie, L D, Thain, J, Deans, H G, Rawles, J M, Squair, J L·1998·Heart

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether nurse run clinics in general practice improve secondary prevention in patients with coronary heart disease. Design: Randomised controlled trial. Setting: A random sample of 19 general practices in northeast Scotland. Patients: 1173 patients (685 men and 488 women) under 80 years with working diagnoses of coronary heart disease, but without terminal illness or dementia and not housebound. Intervention: Nurse run clinics promoted medical and lifestyle aspects of secondary prevention and offered regular follow up. Main outcome measures: Components of secondary prevention assessed at baseline and one year were: aspirin use; blood pressure management; lipid management; physical activity; dietary fat; and smoking status. A cumulative score was generated by counting the number of appropriate components of secondary prevention for each patient. Results: There were significant improvements in aspirin management (odds ratio 3.22, 95% confidence interval 2.15 to 4.80), blood pressure management (5.32, 3.01 to 9.41), lipid management (3.19, 2.39 to 4.26), physical activity (1.67, 1.23 to 2.26) and diet (1.47, 1.10 to 1.96). There was no effect on smoking cessation (0.78, 0.47 to 1.28). Of six possible components of secondary prevention, the baseline mean was 3.27. The adjusted mean improvement attributable to intervention was 0.55 of a component (0.44 to 0.67). Improvement was found regardless of practice baseline performance. Conclusions: Nurse run clinics proved practical to implement in general practice and effectively increased secondary prevention in coronary heart disease. Most patients gained at least one effective component of secondary prevention and, for them, future cardiovascular events and mortality could be reduced by up to a third.

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 · 10.1136/hrt.80.5.447

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • Other studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of nurse-led prevention clinics in primary care compared with usual care, with greater success in secondary as opposed to primary prevention.

    “Other studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of nurse-led prevention clinics in primary care compared with usual care, with greater success in secondary as opposed to primary prevention.532 -534”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Moher M. Evidence of eVectiveness of interventions for second- ary prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease in primary care. Oxford: Anglia and Oxford Regional Health Authority, 1995.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Campbell, N. C., Ritchie, L. D., Thain, J., Deans, H. G., Rawles, J. M., & Squair, J. L.
Affiliations
aDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, Foresterhill Health Centre, Aberdeen, UK, bDenburn Health Centre, Rosemount Viaduct, Aberdeen, UK, cMedicines Assessment Research Unit, Medical School, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK, dDepartment of Public Health, Medical School, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK
Corresponding author
Campbell, N C
Venue
Heart
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1998-11-01
Volume
80
Issue
5
Pages
447-452
ISSN
  • 1355-6037 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-201X
OpenAlex
W2129836013
Cited by
258
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 15
FWCI
13.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Heart (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Nursing Roles and Practices
Keywords
coronary artery disease, secondary prevention, nurse-led clinics, general practice, aspirin use, blood pressure control, lipid control, physical activity, dietary fat, smoking cessation, cardiovascular risk factors, primary care
MeSH terms
Aged, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal, Aspirin, Coronary Disease, Dietary Fats, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Lipids, Male, Middle Aged, Nurse Clinicians, Patient Compliance, Patient Education as Topic, Odds Ratio, Smoking Cessation

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