Efectividad de una estrategia de intervención preventiva, basada en entrevistas telefónicas estructuradas, en una población laboral con riesgo cardiovascular moderado/alto.

OBJECTIVE This study assesses the effectiveness of a structured telephone survey on cardiovascular prevention, in modifying lifestyle, on cardiovascular risk parameters, percentage of smoking cessation and overall cardiovascular risk (CVR). DESIGN Quasi-experimental study of preventive intervention. SETTING Ibermutuamur (Spanish Accident and Health Insurance Company). Centres established throughout Spain. PARTICIPANTS A total of 4,792 workers with moderate/high cardiovascular risk who had agreed to be contacted by phone. Subjects with a previous diagnosis of cardiovascular disease and those receiving treatment for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia or diabetes were excluded. INTERVENTION A final total of 3,085 workers were contacted and were followed up by telephone surveys on the first, fourth and eighth month after the initial check up (CU) in order to emphasise cardiovascular health advice (Group A); we failed to contact 1,707 workers, who only attended the baseline and one year CUs (Group B). PRINCIPAL OUTCOMES: CUs included medical records and physical examination, with two blood pressure measurements, Body Mass Index (BMI), and biochemical parameters. Cardiovascular risk was stratified following the European cardiovascular SCORE. Individuals with a relative risk higher than 4 were also considered as high-risk. All workers were informed about their cardiovascular risk profile (CVRF) and healthy cardiovascular lifestyle measures. They were also given a letter for their General Practitioner (GP) to inform them on the worker's cardiovascular risk level. RESULTS A total of 71.5% of the workers were over 45 years, 95.0% males, 76.6% manual workers ("Blue Collar") and 69.7% smokers. Both groups showed improvement in lipid parameters, blood pressure, smoking cessation and overall cardiovascular risk in the second CU. There were significant differences in favour of Group A as regards blood pressure, lipids (except HDL cholesterol), BMI, glycaemia, smoking cessation (A: 23.5%/B: 19.44%, P=0.001) and CVR stratum improvement (A: 46.6%/B: 37.7%, P=0.0001). The large majority (85%) of workers read preventive recommendations; 33% knew their risk level and 73% knew their CVRF. 52.9% gave the letter to the GP, which led them to start therapies on diet (47%), hypertension (19.5%), dyslipidaemia (16.7%), diabetes (4.4%) and smoking (2.9%) and no changes were made in 36.5% of cases. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggests that cardiovascular prevention strategy based on structured telephone surveys on high/moderate CVR subjects to promote lifestyle changes could be effective at reducing CVR. A clinical trial is required for confirmation. Sending information on CVRF following routine medial CUs and Primary Care involvement, could contribute to the positive changes observed.

Clinical intervals and diagnostic characteristics in a cohort of prostate cancer patients in Spain: a multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND Little is known about the healthcare process for patients with prostate cancer, mainly because hospital-based data are not routinely published. The main objective of this study was to determine the clinical characteristics of prostate cancer patients, the, diagnostic process and the factors that might influence intervals from consultation to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment. METHODS We conducted a multicentre, cohort study in seven hospitals in Spain. Patients' characteristics and diagnostic and therapeutic variables were obtained from hospital records and patients' structured interviews from October 2010 to September 2011. We used a multilevel logistic regression model to examine the association between patient care intervals and various variables influencing these intervals (age, BMI, educational level, ECOG, first specialist consultation, tumour stage, PSA, Gleason score, and presence of symptoms) and calculated the odds ratio (OR) and the interquartile range (IQR). To estimate the random inter-hospital variability, we used the median odds ratio (MOR). RESULTS 470 patients with prostate cancer were included. Mean age was 67.8 (SD: 7.6) years and 75.4 % were physically active. Tumour size was classified as T1 in 41.0 % and as T2 in 40 % of patients, their median Gleason score was 6.0 (IQR:1.0), and 36.1 % had low risk cancer according to the D'Amico classification. The median interval between first consultation and diagnosis was 89 days (IQR:123.5) with no statistically significant variability between centres. Presence of symptoms was associated with a significantly longer interval between first consultation and diagnosis than no symptoms (OR:1.93, 95%CI 1.29-2.89). The median time between diagnosis and first treatment (therapeutic interval) was 75.0 days (IQR:78.0) and significant variability between centres was found (MOR:2.16, 95%CI 1.45-4.87). This interval was shorter in patients with a high PSA value (p = 0.012) and a high Gleason score (p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS Most incident prostate cancer patients in Spain are diagnosed at an early stage of an adenocarcinoma. The period to complete the diagnostic process is approximately three months whereas the therapeutic intervals vary among centres and are shorter for patients with a worse prognosis. The presence of prostatic symptoms, PSA level, and Gleason score influence all the clinical intervals differently.