↓ Skip to main content

Cost effectiveness of case-finding strategies for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a modelling study

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost effectiveness of case-finding strategies for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a modelling study
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, November 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x687973
Pubmed ID
Authors

Catriona Crossan, Joanne Lord, Ronan Ryan, Leo Nherera, Tom Marshall

Abstract

Policies of active case finding for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in healthy adults are common, but economic evaluation has not investigated targeting such strategies at those who are most likely to benefit. To assess the cost effectiveness of targeted case finding for CVD prevention. Cost-effectiveness modelling in an English primary care population. A cohort of 10 000 individuals aged 30-74 years and without existing CVD or diabetes was sampled from The Health Improvement Network database, a large primary care database. A discrete-event simulation was used to model the process of inviting people for assessment, assessing cardiovascular risk, and initiation and persistence with drug treatment. Risk factors and drug cessation rates were obtained from primary care data. Published sources provided estimates of uptake of assessment, treatment initiation, and treatment effects. The researchers determined the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with opportunistic case finding, and strategies prioritising and targeting patients by age or prior estimate of cardiovascular risk. This study reports on the optimum strategy if a QALY is valued at £20 000. Compared with no case finding, inviting all adults aged 30-74 years in a population of 10 000 yields 30.32 QALYs at a total cost of £705 732. The optimum strategy is to rank patients by prior risk estimate and invite 8% of those who are assessed as being at highest risk (those at ≥12.76% predicted 10-year CVD risk), yielding 17.53 QALYs at a cost of £162 280. There is an 89.4% probability that the optimum strategy is to invite <35% of patients for assessment. Across all age ranges, targeted case finding using a prior estimate of CVD risk is more efficient than universal case finding in healthy adults.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 83 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 17%
Researcher 14 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 6 7%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 24 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 28 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,243,901
of 24,293,076 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#607
of 4,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,520
of 316,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#15
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,293,076 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,984 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.