Mismatch between self-perceived and calculated cardiometabolic disease risk among participants in a prevention program for cardiometabolic disease: A cross-sectional study
Stol, D. M.; Hollander, M.; Damman, O. C.; Nielen, M. M.J.; Badenbroek, I. F.; Schellevis, F. G.; De Wit, N. J.
(2020) BMC Public Health, volume 20, issue 1
(Article)
Abstract
Background: The rising prevalence of cardiometabolic diseases (CMD) calls for effective prevention programs. Self-assessment of CMD risk, for example through an online risk score (ORS), might induce risk reducing behavior. However, the concept of disease risk is often difficult for people to understand. Therefore, the study objective was to assess
... read more
the impact of communicating an individualized CMD risk score through an ORS on perceived risk and to identify risk factors and demographic characteristics associated with risk perception among high-risk participants of a prevention program for CMD. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomized controlled trial conducted in a primary care setting. Seven thousand five hundred forty-seven individuals aged 45-70 years without recorded CMD, hypertension or hypercholesterolemia participated. The main outcome measures were: 1) differences in cognitive and affective risk perception between the intervention group - who used an ORS and received an individualized CMD risk score- and the control group who answered questions about CMD risk, but did not receive an individualized CMD risk score; 2) risk factors and demographic characteristics associated with risk perception. Results: No differences were found in cognitive and affective risk perception between the intervention and control group and risk perception was on average low, even among high-risk participants. A positive family history for diabetes type 2 (β0.56, CI95% 0.39-0.73) and cardiovascular disease (β0.28, CI95% 0.13-0.43), BMI ≥25 (β0.27, CI95% 0.12-0.43), high waist circumference (β0.25, CI95% 0.02-0.48) and physical inactivity (β0.30, CI95% 0.16-0.45) were positively associated with cognitive CMD risk perception in high-risk participants. No other risk factors or demographic characteristics were associated with risk perception. Conclusions: Communicating an individualized CMD risk score did not affect risk perception. A mismatch was found between calculated risk and self-perceived risk in high-risk participants. Family history and BMI seem to affect the level of CMD risk perception more than risk factors such as sex, age and smoking. A dialogue about personal CMD risk between patients and health care professionals might optimize the effect of the provided risk information. Trial registration: Dutch trial Register number NTR4277, registered 26th Nov 2013.
show less
Download/Full Text
Keywords: Cardiometabolic diseases, Early detection, Prevention, Primary care, Risk communication, Risk perception, Risk score, Prevalence, Awareness, Humans, Middle Aged, Male, Cognition, Female, Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology, Communication, Body Mass Index, Disease Susceptibility, Cross-Sectional Studies, Risk Factors, Comprehension, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications, Waist Circumference, Self Concept, Diagnostic Self Evaluation, Family, Primary Health Care, Health Status, Sedentary Behavior, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Randomized Controlled Trial, Journal Article
ISSN: 1471-2458
Publisher: BioMed Central
Note: Funding Information: This work was supported by ZonMW (The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development) under grant number 50–51515–98-192; Lekker Lang Leven (a collaboration of the Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation, the Dutch Heart Foundation and the Dutch Kidney Foundation) under grant number 2012.20.1595; and Innovatiefonds Zorgverzekeraars (Healthcare Insurance Innovation Fund) under grant number 2582. The sponsors played no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s).
(Peer reviewed)