Advertisement

International Journal of Public Health

, Volume 64, Issue 1, pp 107–114 | Cite as

Higher mortality in women living in high-participation areas of a population-based health check and lifestyle intervention study

  • Anne Mette BenderEmail author
  • Torben Jørgensen
  • Charlotta Pisinger
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

The aim was to study whether the effects of a population-based health check and lifestyle intervention differed according to study participation rate.

Methods

All persons living in 73 areas of Copenhagen County, Denmark, were included in the Inter99 randomized trial in 1999 (intervention group n = 11,483; control group n = 47,122). All persons in the intervention group were invited for health checks and were offered lifestyle counseling if they were at high risk of ischemic heart disease. Areas were divided into low 35–49%, middle 50–54% and high ≥ 55% health check participation. All persons were followed in registers for 10-year cause-specific mortality.

Results

In high-participation areas, there was a significantly higher risk of lifestyle-(HR 1.37 [1.04, 1.79]) and cancer-related deaths (HR 1.47 [1.08, 2.02]) among women in the intervention group than control group. Regarding smoking-related cancer deaths, differences were even more pronounced. Among men, no significant difference in mortality was seen between control and intervention groups.

Conclusions

The results of this paper suggest that among women, the health check and lifestyle intervention may increase the risk of lifestyle and cancer-related deaths.

Keywords

Cancer Health check Lifestyle intervention Mortality Participation rate Randomized controlled trial 

Notes

Author contributions

TJ conceived and designed the experiments. CP performed the experiments. AMB, TJ, CP analyzed the data. AMB wrote the paper. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and the submission to Clinical Epidemiology.

Funding information

The Inter99 study was funded by the Danish Health Foundation (Grant No. 2010 B 131).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants. In Denmark, researchers are entitled to use registers for research purposes (regarding the control group and non-participants of the intervention group) without persons’ informed consent as long as the researchers comply with predefined research regulations.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the Regional Scientific Ethics Committee (KA 98 155) and the Danish Data Protection Agency. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT00289237).

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Supplementary material

38_2018_1179_MOESM1_ESM.docx (115 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 115 kb)

References

  1. Abdalrahman B, Soljak M (2015) NHS health checks. J Ambul Care Manag 38:5–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/JAC.0000000000000070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta Carotene Cancer Prevention Study Group (1994) The effect of vitamin E and beta carotene on the incidence of lung cancer and other cancers in male smokers. N Engl J Med 330:1029–1035.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199404143301501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amoroso C, Harris MF, Ampt A et al (2009) The 45 year old health check—feasibility and impact on practices and patient behaviour. Aust Fam Physician 38:358–362Google Scholar
  4. Bender AM, Jørgensen T, Pisinger C (2015) Is self-selection the main driver of positive interpretations of general health checks? The Inter99 randomized trial. Prev Med 81:42–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bender AM, Jørgensen T, Pisinger C (2017) Do high participation rates improve effects of population-based general health checks? Prev Med.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.008 Google Scholar
  6. Boytsov S, Potemkina RA (2014) Perspectives: preventive measures for public health in Russian Federation. Eur Heart J Suppl 16:A84–A86.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/sut018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. European Commission E (2018) Glossary: equivalised disposable income. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/index.php/Glossary:Equivalised_disposable_income
  8. Holland W (2009) Periodic health examination—a brief history and critical assessment. Eurohealth 15(4):16–20Google Scholar
  9. Jørgensen T, Borch-Johnsen K, Thomsen TF et al (2003) A randomized non-pharmacological intervention study for prevention of ischaemic heart disease: baseline results Inter99. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil Off J Eur Soc Cardiol Work Groups Epidemiol Prev Card Rehabil Exerc Physiol 10:377–386.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjr.0000096541.30533.82 Google Scholar
  10. Jørgensen T, Capewell S, Prescott E et al (2012) Population-level changes to promote cardiovascular health. Eur J Prev Cardiol.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2047487312441726 Google Scholar
  11. Jørgensen T, Jacobsen RK, Toft U et al (2014) Effect of screening and lifestyle counselling on incidence of ischaemic heart disease in general population: inter99 randomised trial. BMJ 348:g3617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kohro T, Furui Y, Mitsutake N et al (2008) The Japanese national health screening and intervention program aimed at preventing worsening of the metabolic syndrome. Int Heart J 49:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Krogsboll LT, Jorgensen KJ, Gronhoj Larsen C, Gotzsche PC (2012) General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease: cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 345:e7191.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7191 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McDermott MS, Marteau TM, Hollands GJ et al (2013) Change in anxiety following successful and unsuccessful attempts at smoking cessation: cohort study. Br J Psychiatry 202:62–67.  https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.114389 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mindell JS, Giampaoli S, Goesswald A et al (2015) Sample selection, recruitment and participation rates in health examination surveys in Europe—experience from seven national surveys. BMC Med Res Methodol.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0072-4 Google Scholar
  16. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health (2014) The health consequences of smoking—50 years of progress: a report of the surgeon general. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US), Atlanta (GA)Google Scholar
  17. NHS Health Check Expert Scientific and Clinical Advisory Panel (2014) ESCAP (2014) Inter99 trial: a statement from the NHS Health Check Expert Scientific and Clinical Advisory PanelGoogle Scholar
  18. O’Connor RJ, Rees VW, Rivard C et al (2017) Internalized smoking stigma in relation to quit intentions, quit attempts, and current e-cigarette use. Subst Abuse.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2017.1326999 Google Scholar
  19. Office of the Surgeon General (US), Office on Smoking and Health (US) (2004) The health consequences of smoking: a report of the surgeon general. centers for disease control and prevention (US), Atlanta (GA)Google Scholar
  20. Perk J, De Backer G, Gohlke H et al (2012) European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012): the fifth joint task force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts). Atherosclerosis 223:1–68.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2012.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pisinger C, Glümer C, Toft U et al (2008) High risk strategy in smoking cessation is feasible on a population-based level. The Inter99 study. Prev Med 46:579–584.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.02.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Richard L, Potvin L, Kishchuk N et al (1996) Assessment of the integration of the ecological approach in health promotion programs. AJHP 10:318–328Google Scholar
  23. Rose G (1987) European collaborative trial of multifactorial prevention of coronary heart disease. Lancet 1:685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Si S, Moss JR, Sullivan TR et al (2014) Effectiveness of general practice-based health checks: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract J R Coll Gen Pract 64:e47–e53.  https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X676456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Skaaby T, Jørgensen T, Linneberg A (2017) Effects of invitation to participate in health surveys on the incidence of cardiovascular disease: a randomized general population study. Int J Epidemiol 46:603–611.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw311 Google Scholar
  26. Stead LF, Buitrago D, Preciado N et al (2013) Physician advice for smoking cessation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000165.pub4 Google Scholar
  27. Thomsen TF, Davidsen M, Ibsen H et al (2001) A new method for CHD prediction and prevention based on regional risk scores and randomized clinical trials; PRECARD and the Copenhagen Risk Score. J Cardiovasc Risk 8:291–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilson JMG, Jungner G, Organization WH (1968) Principles and practice of screening for disease. Available from: http://apps.who.int.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk//iris/handle/10665/37650
  29. Yong H-H, Borland R, Hyland A, Siahpush M (2008) How does a failed quit attempt among regular smokers affect their cigarette consumption? Findings from the International Tobacco Control Four-Country Survey (ITC-4). Nicotine Tob Res Off J Soc Res Nicotine Tob 10:897.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14622200802023841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Health, Section of Social Medicine, CSS, Faculty of Health SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Faculty of Health ScienceUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Centre for Clinical Research and PreventionBispebjerg and Frederiksberg HospitalCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations