CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Health Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies

Utilization of preventive care services and their effect on cardiovascular outcomes in the United States

Open access
Vaidya, Varun·2011·Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
DOI 10.2147/rmhp.s15777PMC PMC3270932
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe and analyze utilization of preventive care services and their effect on cardiovascular outcomes in the United States. METHODS: Data from the 2007 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) were used to analyze utilization of preventive care services and their effect on cardiovascular outcomes. Recommendations by the Seventh Report of the Joint Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure and the National Cholesterol Education Program were used to determine appropriate levels of preventive care utilization. Utilization of blood pressure screening and cholesterol checkup services were used as the dependent variable, while age, gender, race, ethnicity, insurance status, and perceived health status were used as independent variables. Since guidelines differ for people with elevated blood pressure, respondents with elevated blood pressure were identified in the MEPS database by self-reported diagnosis. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the population, while a multivariate logistic regression model was built to predict odds of utilizing appropriate levels of preventive services. RESULTS: Total number of adult respondents for which data were available for blood pressure checkup and cholesterol checkup was 20,523 and 15,784, respectively. Overall, MEPS respondents were found to adhere to guideline recommendations for preventive care utilization. Multivariate logistic regression showed that odds of utilization of preventive care services were higher for elderly patients (age >65 years) for blood pressure (odds ratio [OR] = 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.92-2.97) and cholesterol (OR = 3.05, 95% CI: 2.18-4.27) preventive services compared with younger population (age 18-54 years). Males had much lower odds of getting blood pressure (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.30-0.37) and cholesterol (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.50-0.70) checks done compared with females. Odds of utilization were nearly similar for all races. Uninsured had lower odds for blood pressure (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.23-0.30) and cholesterol (OR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.24-0.39) checks compared with privately insured people. Asians had lower odds of getting blood pressure checkups compared to Whites (OR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.39-0.63). Similar trends were recorded for other covariates such as race and perceived health status. CONCLUSION: The study was successful in identifying existing age, race, income, and insurance-status related disparities in preventive care utilization within a US population.

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 · 10.2147/rmhp.s15777

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • One prior study using MEPS data found disparities in blood pressure and cholesterol checkups based on age, sex, insurance status, income status and race, but did not assess other CVD risk preventive services such as smoking cessation, dietary or exercise counseling, and did not stratify participants by CVD status.

    “One prior study using data from MEPS found disparities in BP and cholesterol checkups based on age, sex, insurance status, income status and race, but did not assess for other CVD risk preventive services, such as smoking cessation, dietary or exercise counseling, and did not stratify participants based on CVD status [26].”

    From Income disparity and utilization of cardiovascular preventive care services among U.S. adults (2021) · cites this paper as [26]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 24

  1. [2]Marin MG Zitter JN Expenditures associated with preventive healthcare Prev Med 2004 39 856 862 15475016
  2. [3]Nelson DE Bland S Powell-Griner E State trends in health risk factors and receipt of clinical preventive services among US. Adults during the 1990s JAMA 2002 287 20 2659 2667 12020301
  3. [4]Mokdad AH Marks JS Stroup DF Gerberding JL Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000 JAMA 2004 291 10 1238 1245 15010446
  4. [7]Thom T Haase N Rosamond W American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2006 update: a report from the American Heart Association Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee Circulation 2006 113 6 e85 e151 16407573
  5. [8]Trogdon JG Finkelstein EA Nwaise IA Tangka FK Orenstein D The economic burden of chronic cardiovascular disease for major insurers Health Promot Pract 2007 8 3 234 242 17606951
  6. [10]Stuart-Shor EM Nannini A Ostrem M Russell GE Mittleman MA The prevalence of blood pressure and cholesterol monitoring in Boston among non-Hispanic blacks, Hispanics, and non-Hispanic whites Ethn Dis 2006 16 2 375 383 17682238
  7. [11]Anderson G Hussey PS Comparing health system performance in OECD countries. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Health Aff (Millwood) 2001 20 3 219 232 11585171
  8. [12]Gold R DeVoe J Shah A Chauvie S Insurance continuity and receipt of diabetes preventive care in a network of federally qualified health centers Med Care 2009 47 4 431 439 19330890 PMC2730766
  9. [14]Chobanian AV Bakris GL Black HR Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure Hypertension 2003 42 6 1206 1252 14656957
  10. [15]Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (Adult treatment panel III) final report Circulation 2002 106 25 3143 3421 12485966
  11. [17]Park MJ Paul Mulye T Adams SH Brindis CD Irwin CE Jr The health status of young adults in the United States J Adolesc Health 2006 39 3 305 317 16919791
  12. [18]Fortuna RJ Robbins BW Halterman JS Ambulatory care among young adults in the United States Ann Intern Med 2009 151 6 379 385 19755363
  13. [19]Turnbull F Kengne AP MacMahon S Blood pressure and cardiovascular disease: tracing the steps from Framingham Prog Cardiovasc Dis 2010 53 1 39 44 20620424
  14. [20]Kannel WB Risk stratification in hypertension: new insights from the Framingham Study Am J Hypertens 2000 13 1 Pt 2 3S 10S 10678282
  15. [21]Rywik SL Williams OD Pajak A Incidence and correlates of hypertension in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study and the Monitoring Trends and Determinants of Cardiovascular Disease (POL-MONICA) project J Hypertens 2000 18 8 999 1006 10953989
  16. [22]Courtenay WH College men’s health: an overview and a call to action J Am Coll Health 1998 46 6 279 290 9609975
  17. [23]Malacrida R Genoni M Maggioni AP A comparison of the early outcome of acute myocardial infarction in women and men. The Third International Study of Infarct Survival Collaborative Group N Engl J Med 1998 338 1 8 14 9414325
  18. [25]Mackenzie ER Taylor L Bloom BS Hufford DJ Johnson JC Ethnic minority use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM): a national probability survey of CAM utilizers Altern Ther Health Med 2003 9 4 50 56 12868252
  19. [26]Lopez L Cook EF Horng MS Hicks LS Lifestyle modification counseling for hypertensive patients: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2004 Am J Hypertens 2009 22 3 325 331 19096366
  20. [27]Devoe JE Baez A Angier H Krois L Edlund C Carney PA Insurance + access not equal health care: typology of barriers to health care access for low-income families Ann Fam Med 2007 5 6 511 518 18025488 PMC2094032
  21. [28]National Center for Health Statistics Health, United States, 2009: With Special Feature On Medical Technology Hyattsville, MD National Center for Health Statistics 2010 20698070
  22. [29]Bellinger JD Hassan RM Rivers PA Cheng Q Williams E Glover SH Specialty care use in US patients with chronic diseases Int J Environ Res Public Health 2010 7 3 975 990 20617013 PMC2872316
  23. [30]Finkelstein MM Hypertension, self-perceived health status and use of primary care services CMAJ 2000 162 1 45 46 11216197 PMC1232228
  24. [31]Pollak KI Krause KM Yarnall KS Gradison M Michener JL Ostbye T Estimated time spent on preventive services by primary care physicians BMC Health Serv Res 2008 8 245 19046443 PMC2630318

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vaidya, V.
Affiliations
University of Toledo (US)
Corresponding author
Vaidya, Varun
ORCID
Vaidya, Varun
Venue
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2011-01
Volume
4
Pages
1
ISSN
1179-1594 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2147/rmhp.s15777
PMC
PMC3270932
OpenAlex
W2135313784
Cited by
39
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Risk Management and Healthcare Policy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Dove Medical Press (Taylor and Francis Group) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Keywords
preventive care utilization, cardiovascular outcomes, blood pressure screening, cholesterol screening, guideline adherence, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, insurance status, uninsured population, racial and ethnic disparities, gender disparities, age differences, health perception, cardiovascular disease prevention, United States adults, National Cholesterol Education Program, cardiovascular mortality reduction, cardiovascular hospitalization

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