We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
META-ANALYSIS
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
Cardiovascular Risk Factor Management Performance in Canada and the United States: A Systematic Review.
Canadian Journal of Cardiology 2017 March
BACKGROUND: Comparative cardiovascular risk factor care across North America is unknown. We aimed to determine current performance in Canada and the United States (US).
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of Medline and EMBASE (to June 1, 2014). Eligible studies reported on screening, awareness, treatment, or control rates for hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and smoking. Categorical performance 'ratings' on the basis of the most successful US health plans were used to classify rates as suboptimal (< 50%), below target (50%-70%), above target (70%-90%), or optimal (> 90%).
RESULTS: A total of 127 studies reporting on 10,510,324 individuals across North America were included. Hypertension awareness (84.3%) and treatment (82.0%) rates in Canada and the US (82.7% and 75.6%, respectively) were above target, whereas control in both nations was below target (68.1% vs 51.8%, respectively). Canadian awareness, treatment, and control rates for dyslipidemia (42.7%, 40.9%, and 41.5%, respectively) were suboptimal, and American indicators were generally below target (61.5%, 43.0%, and 63.6%, respectively). Canada and the US showed diabetes awareness (88.2% vs 86.8%) and treatment rates (82.3% vs 82.5%) above target. However, glucose control was suboptimal in Canada (35.3%), and below target in the US (58.8%). There was a modest decline in absolute smoking prevalence rates in Canada from 1999 to 2013 (25.2% to 14.6%). Screening for tobacco use (72.2%) and counselling rates (73.8%) in the US were above target.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation exists in cardiovascular risk factor care across North America. Standardized reporting, dissemination of practice guidelines, and setting explicit goal-directed targets for performance might facilitate improvement.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of Medline and EMBASE (to June 1, 2014). Eligible studies reported on screening, awareness, treatment, or control rates for hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and smoking. Categorical performance 'ratings' on the basis of the most successful US health plans were used to classify rates as suboptimal (< 50%), below target (50%-70%), above target (70%-90%), or optimal (> 90%).
RESULTS: A total of 127 studies reporting on 10,510,324 individuals across North America were included. Hypertension awareness (84.3%) and treatment (82.0%) rates in Canada and the US (82.7% and 75.6%, respectively) were above target, whereas control in both nations was below target (68.1% vs 51.8%, respectively). Canadian awareness, treatment, and control rates for dyslipidemia (42.7%, 40.9%, and 41.5%, respectively) were suboptimal, and American indicators were generally below target (61.5%, 43.0%, and 63.6%, respectively). Canada and the US showed diabetes awareness (88.2% vs 86.8%) and treatment rates (82.3% vs 82.5%) above target. However, glucose control was suboptimal in Canada (35.3%), and below target in the US (58.8%). There was a modest decline in absolute smoking prevalence rates in Canada from 1999 to 2013 (25.2% to 14.6%). Screening for tobacco use (72.2%) and counselling rates (73.8%) in the US were above target.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation exists in cardiovascular risk factor care across North America. Standardized reporting, dissemination of practice guidelines, and setting explicit goal-directed targets for performance might facilitate improvement.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app