Directly Mailing gFOBT Kits to Previous Responders Being Recalled for Colorectal Cancer Screening Increases Participation.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) reduces CRC-related death. Average risk individuals should be recalled for screening with gFOBT every 2 years in order to maximize effectiveness. However, adherence with repeated testing is often suboptimal. Our aim was to evaluate whether adding a gFOBT kit to a mailed recall letter improves participation compared with a mailed recall letter alone, among previous responders to a mailed invitation. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the primary care provider as the unit of randomization. Eligible patients had completed a gFOBT and tested negative in an earlier pilot study and were now due for recall. The intervention group received a mailed CRC screening recall letter from their primary care provider plus a gFOBT kit (n = 431) while the control group received a mailed CRC screening mailed recall letter alone (n = 452). The primary outcome was the uptake of gFOBT or colonoscopy within 6 months. RESULTS: gFOBT uptake was higher in the intervention group (61.3%, n = 264) compared with the control group (50.4%, n = 228) with an absolute difference between the two groups of 10.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4 to 20.2%, P = <0.01). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to complete the gFOBT compared with the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.9). CONCLUSION: Our findings show that adding gFOBT kits to the mailed recall letter increased participation among persons recalled for screening. Nine gFOBT kits would have to be sent by mail in order to screen one additional person.

Guideline for referral of patients with suspected prostate cancer by family physicians and other primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this guideline is to assist FPs and other primary care providers with recognizing features that should raise their suspicion about the presence of prostate cancer in their patients. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: Committee members were selected from among the regional primary care leads from the Cancer Care Ontario Provincial Primary Care and Cancer Network and from among the members of the Cancer Care Ontario Genitourinary Cancer Disease Site Group. METHODS: This guideline was developed through systematic review of the evidence base, synthesis of the evidence, and formal external review involving Canadian stakeholders to validate the relevance of recommendations. REPORT: Evidence-based guidelines were developed to improve the management of patients presenting with clinical features of prostate cancer within the Canadian context. CONCLUSION: These guidelines might lead to more timely and appropriate referrals and might also be of value for informing the development of prostate cancer diagnostic programs and for helping policy makers to ensure appropriate resources are in place.

Systematic review of clinical features of suspected prostate cancer in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature and provide an update and integration of existing peer-reviewed guidelines with recent systematic reviews and with primary studies related to the early recognition and management of prostate cancer in primary care. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for relevant articles. The quality of the evidence to support existing guideline recommendations and the consistency of recommendations with updated evidence were assessed. Applicability in a Canadian primary care setting was also evaluated. STUDY SELECTION: All studies conducted in the primary care setting that provided information on clinical features predictive of prostate cancer were included. Also, studies that assessed the accuracy of nomograms to predict prostate cancer were reviewed. SYNTHESIS: The findings suggest that lower urinary tract symptoms are not highly predictive of prostate cancer. However, evidence suggests that FPs might be good at discriminating between patients with and without prostate cancer using digital rectal examination and prostate-specific antigen testing. Nomograms might also be useful in assessing patients for aggressive prostate cancers. CONCLUSION: The results of this review can be used to inform recommendations for referral for suspected prostate cancer in the primary care setting. They could also inform development of prostate cancer diagnostic assessment programs.

Increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening: results from a cluster randomized trial of directly mailed gFOBT kits to previous nonresponders.

Regular screening using guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). The objective of this study was to determine whether the addition of a gFOBT kit to a second mailed invitation compared to a second mailed invitation alone increases CRC screening among eligible persons who did not respond to an initial mailed invitation. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the physician as the unit of randomization. Participants were persons who had been invited but who had not responded to an invitation for CRC screening in an earlier pilot project. The intervention group received a mailed gFOBT kit and second mailed CRC screening invitation (n = 2,008) while the control group received a second mailed CRC screening invitation alone (n = 1,586). The primary outcome was the uptake of gFOBT within 6 months of the second mailing. We found that the uptake of gFOBT was more than twice as high in the intervention group (20.1%) compared to the control group (9.6%). The absolute difference between the two groups was 10.5% (95% CI: 7.5-13.4%, p ≤ 0.0001). In a subsequent adjusted analysis, participants in the intervention group were twice as likely to complete the test as those in the control group (OR = 2.1; 95% CI: 1.6-2.6). These findings suggest that directly mailed gFOBT kits increase CRC screening participation among previous nonresponders to a mailed invitation and that approximately 10 gFOBT kits would have to be sent by mail in order to screen 1 additional person. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01629004).

Patterns of social inequalities across pregnancy and birth outcomes: a comparison of individual and neighborhood socioeconomic measures.

BACKGROUND: This paper identifies patterns of health inequalities (consistency and magnitude) of socioeconomic disparities for multiple maternal and child health (MCH) outcomes that represent different health care needs of mothers and infants. METHODS: Using cross-sectional national data (unweighted sample = 6,421, weighted =76,508) from the Canadian Maternity Experiences Survey linked with 2006 Canadian census data, we categorized 25 health indicators of mothers of singletons into five groups of MCH outcomes (A. maternal and infant health status indicators; B. prenatal care; C. maternal experience of labor and delivery; D. neonatal medical care; and E. postpartum infant care and maternal perceptions of health care services). We then examined the association of these health indicators with individual socioeconomic position (SEP) (education and income), neighborhood SEP and combined SEP (a four-level measure of low and high individual and neighborhood SEP), and compared the magnitude (odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals) and direction of the associations within and between MCH outcome groups. RESULTS: We observed consistent positive gradients of socioeconomic inequalities within most groups and for 23/25 MCH outcomes. However, more significant associations and stronger gradients were observed for the MCH outcomes in the maternal and infant health status group as opposed to other groups. The neonatal medical care outcomes were weakly associated with SEP. The direction of associations was negative between some SEP measures and HIV testing, timing of the first ultrasound, caesarean section, epidural for vaginal births, infant needing non-routine neonatal care after discharge and any breastfeeding at 3 or 6 months. Gradients were steep for individual SEP but moderate for neighborhood SEP. Combined SEP had no consistent gradients but the subcategory of low individual-high neighborhood SEP often showed the poorest health outcomes compared to the categories within this SEP grouping. CONCLUSION: By examining SEP gradients in multiple MCH outcomes categorized into groups of health care needs, we identified large and consistent inequalities both within and between these groups. Our results suggest differences in pathways and mechanisms contributing to SEP inequalities across groups of MCH outcomes that can be examined in future research and inform prioritization of policies for reducing these inequalities.

Guideline for referral of patients with suspected lung cancer by family physicians and other primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this guideline is to assist FPs and other primary care providers with recognizing features that should raise their suspicions about the presence of lung cancer in their patients. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: Committee members were selected from among the regional primary care leads from the Cancer Care Ontario Provincial Primary Care and Cancer Network and from among the members of the Cancer Care Ontario Lung Cancer Disease Site Group. METHODS: This guideline was developed through systematic review of the evidence base, synthesis of the evidence, and formal external review involving Canadian stakeholders to validate the relevance of recommendations. REPORT: Evidence-based guidelines were developed to improve the management of patients presenting with clinical features of lung cancer within the Canadian context. CONCLUSION: Earlier identification and referral of patients with lung cancer might ultimately help improve lung cancer morbidity and mortality. These guidelines might also be of value for informing the development of lung cancer diagnostic programs and for helping policy makers to ensure appropriate resources are in place.

Guideline for referral of patients with suspected colorectal cancer by family physicians and other primary care providers.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this guideline is to assist FPs and other primary care providers with recognizing features that should raise their suspicions about the presence of colorectal cancer (CRC) in their patients. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE: Committee members were selected from among the regional primary care leads from the Cancer Care Ontario Provincial Primary Care and Cancer Network, the members of the Ontario Colorectal Cancer Screening Advisory Committee, and the members of the Cancer Care Ontario Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group. METHODS: This guideline was developed through systematic review of the evidence base, synthesis of the evidence, and formal external review involving Canadian stakeholders to validate the relevance of recommendations. REPORT: Evidence-based guidelines were developed to improve the management of patients presenting with clinical features of CRC within the Canadian context. CONCLUSION: The judicious balancing of suspicion of CRC and level of risk of CRC should encourage timely referral by FPs and primary care providers. This guideline might also inform indications for referral to CRC diagnostic assessment programs.

Systematic review of guidelines for the management of suspected lung cancer in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the literature and provide an update and integration of existing peer-reviewed guidelines with recent systematic reviews and with primary studies related to the early recognition and management of lung cancer in primary care. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles. The quality of the evidence to support existing guideline recommendations, and the consistency of recommendations with updated evidence, were assessed. Applicability in a Canadian primary care setting was also evaluated. STUDY SELECTION: All studies that explored signs or symptoms of or risk factors for lung cancer in the primary care setting were included. All diagnostic studies in which symptomatic primary care patients underwent 1 or more investigations were also searched. SYNTHESIS: Recommendations were consistent among guidelines despite a paucity of supporting evidence. Updated evidence provided further support for the recommendations. Recommendations for identifying signs and symptoms of lung cancer presenting in primary care and for initial management can be adopted and applied within a Canadian primary care setting. CONCLUSION: This updated review of recommendations might help promote evidence-based practice and, ultimately, more timely management and improved prognosis for lung cancer patients. It might also assist in the development of lung cancer diagnostic assessment programs.

Systematic review of clinical features of suspected colorectal cancer in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of clinical features associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) presenting in primary care. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies in primary care that provided information on clinical features predictive of CRC. Positive predictive values were used to guide the determination of clinical features associated with increased risk of CRC. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews or primary studies that provided possible clinical features predictive of CRC were included. SYNTHESIS: Clinical features of patients presenting in primary care that are associated with increased risk of CRC, listed in descending order of association, included palpable rectal or abdominal mass; rectal bleeding combined with weight loss; iron deficiency anemia; rectal bleeding mixed with stool; rectal bleeding in the absence of perianal symptoms; rectal bleeding combined with change in bowel habits; dark rectal bleeding; rectal bleeding and diarrhea; and change in bowel habits. Being male and increasing age were also, in general, associated with increased risk of CRC. CONCLUSION: Recognition of clinical features associated with increased risk of CRC by FPs might help with earlier identification and referral among patients presenting in primary care. This review might help inform providers and CRC diagnostic assessment programs about indications for assessment and further investigation.

Refinement of indicators and criteria in a quality tool for assessing quality in primary care in Canada: a Delphi panel study.

PURPOSE: Primary care is the cornerstone of the health care system and increasingly countries are developing indicators for assessing quality in primary care practices. The 'Quality Tool', developed in Ontario, Canada, provides a framework for assessing practices and consists of indicators and criteria. The purpose of this study was to validate the indicators and simplify the Quality Tool. METHODS: This study involved a systematic comparison of indicators in the Quality Tool with those in other local and international tools to determine common indicators to include as valid in the Quality Tool. A Delphi process was used to help reach consensus for inclusion of any indicators that were not included in the comparison exercise. SETTING: Primary care in Ontario, Canada. SUBJECTS: Key informants were those with known expertise and experience in quality assessment in primary care. MAIN OUTCOME: Validated set of indicators for inclusion in an updated Quality Tool. RESULTS: Twenty-three stakeholders participated in the Delphi panel. Forty-four indicators were included as valid after the systematic comparison of similar indicators in other assessment tools. Of the 63 indicators brought to the Delphi panel, 37 were included as valid, 15 were excluded and 11 became criteria for other included indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The study resulted in a set of 81 validated primary care indicators. The validation of the indicators provided a strong foundation for the next version of the Quality Tool and may be used for quality assessment in primary care.

ColonCancerCheck primary care invitation pilot project: patient perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the perceptions of those who received invitations to the ColonCancerCheck Primary Care Invitation Pilot (the Pilot) about the mailed invitation, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in general, and their specific screening experiences. DESIGN: Qualitative study with 6 focus group sessions, each 1.5 hours in length. SETTING: Hamilton, Ont; Ottawa, Ont; and Thunder Bay, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Screening-eligible adults, aged 50 years and older, who received a Pilot invitation for CRC screening. METHODS: The focus groups were conducted by a trained moderator and were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. The transcripts were analyzed using grounded-theory techniques facilitated by the use of electronic software. MAIN FINDINGS: Key themes related to the invitation letter, the role of the family physician, direct mailing of the fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) kit, and alternate CRC screening promotion strategies were identified. Specifically, participants suggested the letter content should use stronger, more powerful language to capture the reader's attention. The importance of the family physician was endorsed, although participants favoured clarification of the physician and program roles in the actual mailed invitation. Participants expressed support for directly mailing FOBT kits to individuals, particularly those with successful previous test completion, and for communication of both negative and positive screening results. CONCLUSION: This study yielded a number of important findings including strategies to optimize letter content, support for directly mailed FOBT kits, and strategies to report results that might be highly relevant to other health programs where population-based CRC screening is being considered.

Developing an institute of medicine-aligned framework for categorizing primary care indicators for quality assessment.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) framework has been used frequently to assess and monitor quality in secondary and tertiary care, but not in primary care. This article describes and proposes a conceptual framework for categorizing primary care indicators that align with the IOM's six aims for quality in healthcare performance (Safe, Effective, Patient-Centred, Timely, Efficient and Equitable.) Using an iterative process, the authors developed and compared a primary care framework for categorizing indicators in the Quality in Family Practice Book of Tools (QBT) with the IOM aims and other local healthcare systems frameworks (Integrated and Continuous, Appropriate Practice Resources). They also compared, cross-matched and analyzed their QBT categories and indicators with other international primary care assessment tools. And they compared the QBT titles and descriptions of groups of indicators with those published in the international tools.

ColonCancerCheck Primary Care Invitation Pilot project: family physician perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine family physician perspectives regarding the acceptability and effectiveness of 2 interventions-a targeted, mailed invitation for screening to patients, and family physician audit-feedback reports-and on the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program generally. This information will be used to guide program strategies for increasing screening uptake. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Family physicians (n = 65). METHODS: Seven 1-hour focus groups were conducted with family physicians using teleconferencing and Web-based technologies. Responses were elicited regarding family physicians' perspectives on the mailing of invitations to patients, the content and design of the audit-feedback reports, the effect of participation in the pilot project on daily practice, and overall CRC screening program function. MAIN FINDINGS: Key themes included strong support for both interventions and for the CRC screening program generally. Moderate support was found for direct mailing of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) kits. Participants identified potential pitfalls if interventions were implemented outside of patient enrolment model practices. Participants expressed relatively strong support for colonoscopy as a CRC screening test but relatively weak support for FOBT. CONCLUSION: Although the proposed interventions to increase the uptake of CRC screening were highly endorsed, concerns about their applicability to non-patient enrolment model practices and the current lack of physician support for FOBT will need to be addressed to optimize intervention and program effectiveness. Our study is highly relevant to other public health programs planning organized CRC screening programs.

Use of routine interventions in labour and birth in Canadian hospitals: comparing results of the 1993 and 2007 Canadian hospital maternity policies and practices surveys.

OBJECTIVES: To compare policies and practices of routine interventions in labour and birth in Canadian hospitals in 1993 and 2007 and to describe trends regarding adherence to evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: We used data from surveys of Canadian hospitals in 1993 and 2007 on routine maternity care practices and policies, including interventions in labour and birth. RESULTS: The response rate of hospitals in 1993 was 91% (523/572), and in 2007 it was 92% (323/353). In 1993, 65% of hospitals (335/516) had a policy that all women should have initial electronic fetal heart rate monitoring, and in 2007, 74% (235/319) had such a policy. In 1993, 55% of hospitals (284/516) used epidural anaesthesia as one of the methods for pain control, and in 2007, 87% of hospitals (278/318) did so. In 1993, 37% of hospitals (193/521) had a "no enema/suppository" policy on admission, and in 2007, 88% (282/322) did. In 1993, 87% of hospitals (450/516) had a policy encouraging the presence of both the woman's partner and other labour support people in the room during the course of labour; in 2007, 80% (259/323) did. In 1993, hospitals estimated that 62% of primiparous women and 44% of multiparous women had an episiotomy in their units. In 2007, the episiotomy rate, irrespective of parity, was 17%. In 1993, 20% of hospitals (98/498) had a policy specifying the length of the second stage of labour, and in 2007, 33% (101/307) had such a policy. CONCLUSION: Positive and negative trends in adherence to best practices were seen in policies and practices of routine interventions during labour and birth in Canadian hospitals between 1993 and 2007.

What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate screening may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. As part of a larger agenda to create an implementation guideline, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate interventions designed to increase the rate of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The interventions considered were: client reminders, client incentives, mass media, small media, group education, one-on-one education, reduction in structural barriers, reduction in out-of-pocket costs, provider assessment and feedback interventions, and provider incentives. Our primary outcome, screening completion, was calculated as the overall median post-intervention absolute percentage point (PP) change in completed screening tests. METHODS: Our first step was to conduct an iterative scoping review in the research area. This yielded three relevant high-quality systematic reviews. Serving as our evidentiary foundation, we conducted a formal update. Randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized controlled trials, published between 2004 and 2010, were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCHinfo. RESULTS: The update yielded 66 studies new eligible studies with 74 comparisons. The new studies ranged considerably in quality. Client reminders, small media, and provider audit and feedback appear to be effective interventions to increase the uptake of screening for three cancers. One-on-one education and reduction of structural barriers also appears effective, but their roles with CRC and cervical screening, respectively, are less established. More study is required to assess client incentives, mass media, group education, reduction of out-of-pocket costs, and provider incentive interventions. CONCLUSION: The new evidence generally aligns with the evidence and conclusions from the original systematic reviews. This review served as the evidentiary foundation for an implementation guideline. Poor reporting, lack of precision and consistency in defining operational elements, and insufficient consideration of context and differences among populations are areas for additional research.

Effective interventions to facilitate the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: an implementation guideline.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate screening may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers. Several high-quality systematic reviews and practice guidelines exist to inform the most effective screening options. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. We developed an implementation guideline to answer the question: What interventions have been shown to increase the uptake of cancer screening by individuals, specifically for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers? METHODS: A guideline panel was established as part of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-based Care, and a systematic review of the published literature was conducted. It yielded three foundational systematic reviews and an existing guidance document. We conducted updates of these reviews and searched the literature published between 2004 and 2010. A draft guideline was written that went through two rounds of review. Revisions were made resulting in a final set of guideline recommendations. RESULTS: Sixty-six new studies reflecting 74 comparisons met eligibility criteria. They were generally of poor to moderate quality. Using these and the foundational documents, the panel developed a draft guideline. The draft report was well received in the two rounds of review with mean quality scores above four (on a five-point scale) for each of the items. For most of the interventions considered, there was insufficient evidence to support or refute their effectiveness. However, client reminders, reduction of structural barriers, and provision of provider assessment and feedback were recommended interventions to increase screening for at least two of three cancer sites studied. The final guidelines also provide advice on how the recommendations can be used and future areas for research. CONCLUSION: Using established guideline development methodologies and the AGREE II as our methodological frameworks, we developed an implementation guideline to advise on interventions to increase the rate of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. While advancements have been made in these areas of implementation science, more investigations are warranted.

Breastfeeding policies and practices in Canadian hospitals: comparing 1993 with 2007.

BACKGROUND: The Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) promotes the World Health Organization International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes (WHO Code) and the WHO/UNICEF's Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding (Ten Steps). The purpose of this study is to describe and compare maternity hospitals' adherence to the BFHI in 1993 and 2007 for Canada and for each province and territory. METHODS: A survey of all Canadian maternity hospitals was conducted in 1993 and 2007 on routine maternity care practices and policies including infant feeding. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 91 percent (n = 523/572 hospitals) in 1993 and 92 percent (n = 323/353 hospitals) in 2007. Eighty-two percent (415/507) of hospitals in 1993 and 68 percent (198/292) in 2007 had exclusive contracts with formula companies. Fifty-eight percent (302/517) of hospitals in 1993 and 90 percent (289/322) in 2007 never gave breastfeeding mothers sample packs containing formula. Fifty-eight percent (296/507) in 1993 and 85 percent (273/321) in 2007 had written breastfeeding policies (Step 1); 97 percent (503/518) in 1993 and 99 percent (320/322) in 2007 allowed mothers to breastfeed, on cue, whenever the babies indicated an interest 24 hours a day (Step 8); 24 percent (126/519) in 1993 and 64 percent (206/321) in 2007 reported that they did not provide soothers (Step 9); 58 percent (297/513) in 1993 and 68 percent (215/316) in 2007 always offered information on breastfeeding support groups and/or advice at time of discharge (Step 10). CONCLUSIONS: In the 14 years separating the two surveys, Canadian maternity hospitals substantially improved their implementation of the WHO Code and their adherence to the WHO/UNICEF Ten Steps.

Improving cardiovascular health at population level: 39 community cluster randomised trial of Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the community based Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) on morbidity from cardiovascular disease. DESIGN: Community cluster randomised trial. SETTING: 39 mid-sized communities in Ontario, Canada, stratified by location and population size. PARTICIPANTS: Community dwelling residents aged 65 years or over, family physicians, pharmacists, volunteers, community nurses, and local lead organisations. INTERVENTION: Communities were randomised to receive CHAP (n = 20) or no intervention (n = 19). In CHAP communities, residents aged 65 or over were invited to attend volunteer run cardiovascular risk assessment and education sessions held in community based pharmacies over a 10 week period; automated blood pressure readings and self reported risk factor data were collected and shared with participants and their family physicians and pharmacists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite of hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and congestive heart failure among all community residents aged 65 and over in the year before compared with the year after implementation of CHAP. RESULTS: All 20 intervention communities successfully implemented CHAP. A total of 1265 three hour long sessions were held in 129/145 (89%) pharmacies during the 10 week programme. 15,889 unique participants had a total of 27,358 cardiovascular assessments with the assistance of 577 peer volunteers. After adjustment for hospital admission rates in the year before the intervention, CHAP was associated with a 9% relative reduction in the composite end point (rate ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 0.97; P = 0.002) or 3.02 fewer annual hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease per 1000 people aged 65 and over. Statistically significant reductions favouring the intervention communities were seen in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction (rate ratio 0.87, 0.79 to 0.97; P = 0.008) and congestive heart failure (0.90, 0.81 to 0.99; P = 0.029) but not for stroke (0.99, 0.88 to 1.12; P = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative, multi-pronged, community based health promotion and prevention programme targeted at older adults can reduce cardiovascular morbidity at the population level. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN50550004.