Effects on cardiovascular disease risk of a web-based health risk assessment with tailored health advice: a follow-up study

Ersen B Colkesen, Bart S Ferket, Jan G P Tijssen, Roderik A Kraaijenhagen, Coenraad K van Kalken, Ron J G Peters, Ersen B Colkesen, Bart S Ferket, Jan G P Tijssen, Roderik A Kraaijenhagen, Coenraad K van Kalken, Ron J G Peters

Abstract

Introduction: A large proportion of the cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden can potentially be prevented by primary prevention programs addressing major causal risk factors. A Web-based health risk assessment (HRA) with tailored feedback for individual health promotion is a promising strategy. We evaluated the effect on CVD risk of such a program among employees of a Dutch worksite.

Methods: We conducted a prospective follow-up study among 368 employees who voluntarily participated in a Web-based HRA program at a single Dutch worksite in 2008. The program included a multicomponent HRA through a Web-based electronic questionnaire, biometrics, and laboratory evaluation. The results were combined with health behavior change theory to generate tailored motivational and educational health advice. On request, a health counseling session with the program physician was available. Follow-up data on CVD risk were collected 1 year after initial participation. The primary outcome was a change in Framingham CVD risk at 6 months relative to baseline. We checked for a possible background effect of an increased health consciousness as a consequence of program introduction at the worksite by comparing baseline measurements of early program participants with baseline measurements of participants who completed the program 6 months later.

Results: A total of 176 employees completed follow-up measurements after a mean of 7 months. There was a graded relation between CVD risk changes and baseline risk, with a relative reduction of 17.9% (P = 0.001) in the high-risk category (baseline CVD risk ≥ 20%). Changes were not explained by additional health counseling, medication, or an increase in health consciousness within the company.

Conclusions: Voluntary participation in a Web-based HRA with tailored feedback at the worksite reduced CVD risk by nearly 18% among participants at high CVD risk and by nearly 5% among all participants. Web-based HRA could improve CVD risk in similar populations. Future research should focus on the persistence of the effects underlying the CVD risk reduction.

Keywords: cardiovascular disease risk; health risk assessment; primary prevention.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow. Notes: The HRA program was applied as part of the worksite health management program in a Dutch company worksite in 2008. During this period 2149 employees were invited to complete the HRA. Employees were divided by day and month of birth in an early and late invitation group. Early invitees who participated in the HRA program were invited for follow-up measurements, six months after the initial program invitation. At that same time the late invitation group was invited for their initial participation. The primary outcome was the change in CVD risk between baseline and follow-up among 176 early participants. To account for time trends, baseline variables between early and late participants were compared. Nonresponse bias was checked by comparing baseline values of 176 early participants who attended follow-up with 192 who did not.

References

    1. Allender S, Scarborough P, Peto V, et al. European Cardiovascular Disease Statistics 2008. Oxford, UK: Department of Public Health, University of Oxford; 2008. British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group.
    1. Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, et al. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet. 2004;364:937–952.
    1. World Health Organization . Preventing Chronic Diseases: a Vital Investment – WHO global report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2005.
    1. Yach D, Hawkes C, Gould CL, Hofman KJ. The global burden of chronic diseases: overcoming impediments to prevention and control. JAMA. 2004;291:2616–2622.
    1. Carnethon M, Whitsel LP, Franklin BA, et al. Worksite wellness programs for cardiovascular disease prevention: a policy statement from the american heart association. Circulation. 2009;120:1725–1741.
    1. Goetzel RZ, Ozminkowski RJ. The health and cost benefits of work site health-promotion programs. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:303–323.
    1. Soler RE, Leeks KD, Razi S, et al. A systematic review of selected interventions for worksite health promotion. The assessment of health risks with feedback. Am J Prev Med. 2010;38:S237–S262.
    1. Anderson DR, Staufacker MJ. The impact of worksite-based health risk appraisal on health-related outcomes: a review of the literature. Am J Health Promot. 1996;10:499–508.
    1. Cowdery JE, Suggs LS, Parker S. Application of a Web-based tailored health risk assessment in a work-site population. Health Promot Pract. 2007;8:88–95.
    1. Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ. Do tailored behavior change messages enhance the effectiveness of health risk appraisal? Results from a randomized trial. Health Educ Res. 1996;11:97–105.
    1. Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ, Glassman B. One size does not fit all: the case for tailoring print materials. Ann Behav Med. 1999;21:276–283.
    1. Noar SM, Benac CN, Harris MS. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull. 2007;133:673–693.
    1. Prochaska JO, Velicer WF. The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997;12:38–48.
    1. Floyd DL, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW. A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30:407–429.
    1. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the Exercise of Control. New York, NY, USA: WH Freeman and Co; 1997.
    1. The Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO and Dutch College of General Practitioners . Multidisciplinary Guideline Cardiovascular Risk Management. Utrecht, the Netherlands: van Zuiden Communications; 2006.
    1. Graham I, Atar D, Borch-Johnsen K, et al. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: executive summary. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:2375–2414.
    1. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1381–1395.
    1. Van den Brink CL, Ocke MC, Houben AW, et al. Validering van Standaardvraagstelling Voeding voor Lokale en National Monitor Volksgezondheid (RIVM Rapport 260854008) [Validation of a Community Health Services Food Consumption Questionnaire in the Netherlands] Bilthoven, the Netherlands: Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM); 2005.
    1. Mudde AN, Willemsen MC, Kremers S, de Vries H. Meetinstrumenten voor Onderzoek Naar Roken en Stoppen met Roken [Measurements for Research on Smoking and Smoking Cessation] Den Haag, the Netherlands: STIVORO; 2000.
    1. D’Agostino RB, Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation. 2008;117:743–753.
    1. Cooper AR, Moore LA, McKenna J, Riddoch CJ. What is the magnitude of blood pressure response to a programme of moderate intensity exercise? Randomised controlled trial among sedentary adults with unmedicated hypertension. Br J Gen Pract. 2000;50:958–962.
    1. Ebrahim S, Smith GD. Lowering blood pressure: a systematic review of sustained effects of non-pharmacological interventions. J Public Health Med. 1998;20:441–448.
    1. John JH, Ziebland S, Yudkin P, et al. Effects of fruit and vegetable consumption on plasma antioxidant concentrations and blood pressure: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359:1969–1974.
    1. Sacks FM, Svetkey LP, Vollmer WM, et al. Effects on blood pressure of reduced dietary sodium and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet. DASH-Sodium Collaborative Research Group. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:3–10.
    1. Ebrahim S, Beswick A, Burke M, Davey SG. Multiple risk factor interventions for primary prevention of coronary heart disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:CD001561.
    1. Heaney CA, Goetzel RZ. A review of health-related outcomes of multi-component worksite health promotion programs. Am J Health Promot. 1997;11:290–307.
    1. Pelletier KR. A review and analysis of the clinical and cost-effectiveness studies of comprehensive health promotion and disease management programs at the worksite: update VII 2004–2008. J Occup Environ Med. 2009;51:822–837.
    1. Ellsworth DL, O’Dowd SC, Salami B, et al. Intensive lifestyle modification: impact on cardiovascular disease risk factors in subjects with and without clinical cardiovascular disease. Prev Cardiol. 2004;7:168–175.
    1. Maruthur NM, Wang NY, Appel LJ. Lifestyle interventions reduce coronary heart disease risk: results from the PREMIER trial. Circulation. 2009;119:2026–2031.
    1. Mendivil CO, Cortes E, Sierra ID, et al. Reduction of global cardiovascular risk with nutritional versus nutritional plus physical activity intervention in Colombian adults. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2006;13:947–955.
    1. Richardson G, van Woerden HC, Morgan L, et al. Healthy hearts: a community-based primary prevention programme to reduce coronary heart disease. BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2008;8:18.
    1. Wister A, Loewen N, Kennedy-Symonds H, et al. One-year follow-up of a therapeutic lifestyle intervention targeting cardiovascular disease risk. CMAJ. 2007;177:859–865.
    1. Dobbins TA, Simpson JM, Oldenburg B, et al. Who comes to a workplace health risk assessment? Int J Behav Med. 1998;5:323–334.
    1. Robroek SJ, van Lenthe FJ, van EP, Burdorf A. Determinants of participation in worksite health promotion programmes: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:26.
    1. Lerman Y, Shemer J. Epidemiologic characteristics of participants and nonparticipants in health-promotion programs. J Occup Environ Med. 1996;38:535–538.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir