| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Halcox, Julian P., et al.
(författare)
-
Prevalence and treatment of atherogenic dyslipidemia in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in Europe : EURIKA, a cross-sectional observational study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders. - : BioMed Central. - 1471-2261 .- 1471-2261. ; 17
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia is associated with poor cardiovascular outcomes, yet markers of this condition are often ignored in clinical practice. Here, we address a clear evidence gap by assessing the prevalence and treatment of two markers of atherogenic dyslipidemia: elevated triglyceride levels and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study assessed the prevalence of two atherogenic dyslipidemia markers, high triglyceride levels and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, in the study population from the European Study on Cardiovascular Risk Prevention and Management in Usual Daily Practice (EURIKA; N = 7641; of whom 51.6% were female and 95.6% were White/Caucasian). The EURIKA population included European patients, aged at least 50 years with at least one cardiovascular risk factor but no history of cardiovascular disease. Results: Over 20% of patients from the EURIKA population have either triglyceride or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels characteristic of atherogenic dyslipidemia. Furthermore, the proportions of patients with one of these markers were higher in subpopulations with type 2 diabetes mellitus or those already calculated to be at high risk of cardiovascular disease. Approximately 55% of the EURIKA population who have markers of atherogenic dyslipidemia are not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. Conclusions: A considerable proportion of patients with at least one major cardiovascular risk factor in the primary cardiovascular disease prevention setting have markers of atherogenic dyslipidemia. The majority of these patients are not receiving optimal treatment, as specified in international guidelines, and thus their risk of developing cardiovascular disease is possibly underestimated.
|
|
| 5. |
- Thomas, Kristin, et al.
(författare)
-
Associations of Psychosocial Factors with Multiple Health Behaviors : A Population-Based Study of Middle-Aged Men and Women
- 2020
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. - : MDPI. - 1661-7827 .- 1660-4601. ; 17:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The health behaviors smoking, risky alcohol consumption, insufficient physical activity, and poor diet constitute the main contributors to non-communicable diseases. Clustering of risk behaviors is common and increases the risk of these diseases. Despite health benefits, it is difficult to change health behaviors. Psychosocial factors could play a role in health behavior change, with research showing relationships between unfavorable psychosocial factors and health risk behaviors. However, many studies only investigated one or two health behaviors at a time. The present study, therefore, aimed to investigate associations between a broad range of psychosocial factors and multiple health risk behaviors in a general middle-aged population in Sweden. Methods: A cross-sectional design was used to investigate a random sample from the general population in Sweden (n = 1007, 45-69 years, 50% women). Questionnaire data on health behaviors (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and fruit/vegetable intake) and psychosocial factors, with both psychological and social resources (social integration, emotional support, perceived control, self-esteem, sense of coherence and trust) and psychological risk factors (cynicism, vital exhaustion, hopelessness and depressiveness), were analyzed. Logistic and ordinal logistic regression were used to analyze associations between psychosocial factors and multiple (0-1, 2 or 3-4) health risk behaviors. Results: A total of 50% of the sample had two health risk behaviors and 18% had three health risk behaviors. After adjusting for age, sex, education, employment status, and immigrant status, eight out of 10 psychosocial factors (exceptions: social integration and self-esteem) showed significant odds ratios (ORs) in the expected directions; low levels of psychosocial resources and high levels of psychosocial risk factors were associated with multiple risk behaviors. The strongest associations with multiple risk behaviors were seen for vital exhaustion (adjusted (adj.) OR 1.28; confidence interval (CI) 1.11-1.46), depressiveness (adj. OR 1.32, CI 1.14-1.52), and trust (adj. OR 0.80, CI 0.70-0.91). When controlling for all psychosocial factors in the same model, only the association with trust remained statistically significant (adj. OR 0.89, CI 0.73-1.00, p = 0.050). Associations with individual health behaviors were fewer and scattered, with no psychosocial factor being related to all four behaviors. Conclusions: Examining associations between a broad range of psychosocial factors and multiple health risk behaviors revealed consistent and significant associations for almost all psychosocial factors. These associations were stronger compared to associations to single health risk behaviors. Our findings support the relevance of considering psychosocial aspects in interventions aimed at health behavior change, especially for people with multiple health risk behaviors.
|
|
| 6. |
- Unbeck, Maria, et al.
(författare)
-
Is detection of adverses events affected by record review merthodology? an evaluation of the "Harvard medical practice study" method and the "Global trigger tool"
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Patient Safety in Surgery. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1754-9493. ; 7:April
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThere has been a theoretical debate as to which retrospective record review method is the most valid, reliable, cost efficient and feasible for detecting adverse events. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility and capability of two common retrospective record review methods, the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” in detecting adverse events in adult orthopaedic inpatients.MethodsWe performed a three-stage structured retrospective record review process in a random sample of 350 orthopaedic admissions during 2009 at a Swedish university hospital. Two teams comprised each of a registered nurse and two physicians were assigned, one to each method. All records were primarily reviewed by registered nurses. Records containing a potential adverse event were forwarded to physicians for review in stage 2. Physicians made an independent review regarding, for example, healthcare causation, preventability and severity. In the third review stage all adverse events that were found with the two methods together were compared and all discrepancies after review stage 2 were analysed. Events that had not been identified by one of the methods in the first two review stages were reviewed by the respective physicians.ResultsAltogether, 160 different adverse events were identified in 105 (30.0%) of the 350 records with both methods combined. The “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method identified 155 of the 160 (96.9%, 95% CI: 92.9-99.0) adverse events in 104 (29.7%) records compared with 137 (85.6%, 95% CI: 79.2-90.7) adverse events in 98 (28.0%) records using the “Global Trigger Tool”. Adverse events “causing harm without permanent disability” accounted for most of the observed difference. The overall positive predictive value for criteria and triggers using the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method and the “Global Trigger Tool” was 40.3% and 30.4%, respectively.ConclusionsMore adverse events were identified using the “Harvard Medical Practice Study” method than using the “Global Trigger Tool”. Differences in review methodology, perception of less severe adverse events and context knowledge may explain the observed difference between two expert review teams in the detection of adverse events.
|
|
