ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lifestyle intervention programmes target behavioural risk factors that contribute to cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Unfortunately, sustainable implementation of these programmes can be challenging. Gaining insights into the barriers and facilitators for successful implementation is important for maximising public health impact of these interventions. The Healthy Heart (HH) programme is an example of a combined lifestyle intervention programme. AIM: To analyse the reach, adoption, and implementation of the HH programme. DESIGN & SETTING: A mixed-methods study conducted in a general practice setting in The Netherlands. METHOD: Quantitative data were collected from the Healthy Heart study (HH study), a non-randomised cluster stepped-wedge trial to assess the effect of the HH programme on patients at high risk of developing CVDs at practice level. Qualitative data were obtained through focus groups. RESULTS: Out of 73 approached general practices, 55 implemented the HH programme. A total of 1082 patients agreed to participate in the HH study, of whom 64 patients were referred to the HH programme and 41 patients participated. Several barriers for participation were identified such as time investment, lack of risk perception, and being confident in changing lifestyle on their own. Important barriers for healthcare providers (HCPs) to refer a patient were time investment, lack of information to sufficiently inform patients, and preconceived notions regarding which patients the programme was suitable for. CONCLUSION: This study has offered insights from a patient and HCP perspective regarding barriers and facilitators for implementation of the group-based lifestyle intervention programme. The identified barriers and facilitators, and the suggested improvements, can be used by others who wish to implement a similar programme.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering the combined lifestyle programme "Healthy Heart", addressing overweight, diet, physical activity, smoking and alcohol, to improve lifestyle behaviour and reduce cardiovascular risk. DESIGN: A practice-based non-randomised stepped-wedge cluster trial with two-year follow-up. Outcomes were obtained via questionnaires and routine care data. A cost-utility analysis was performed. During the intervention period, "Healthy Heart" was offered during regular cardiovascular risk management consultations in primary care in The Hague, The Netherlands. The period prior to the intervention period served as the control period. RESULTS: In total, 511 participants (control) and 276 (intervention) with a high cardiovascular risk were included (overall mean ± SD age 65.0 ± 9.6; women: 56%). During the intervention period, 40 persons (15%) participated in the Healthy Heart programme. Adjusted outcomes did not differ between the control and intervention period after 3-6 months and 12-24 months. Intervention versus control (95% CI) 3-6 months: weight: ß -0.5 (-1.08-0.05); SBP ß 0.15 (-2.70-2.99); LDL-cholesterol ß 0.07 (-0.22-0.35); HDL-cholesterol ß -0.03 (-0.10-0.05); physical activity ß 38 (-97-171); diet ß 0.95 (-0.93-2.83); alcohol OR 0.81 (0.44-1.49); quit smoking OR 2.54 (0.45-14.24). Results were similar for 12-24 months. Mean QALYs and mean costs of cardiovascular care were comparable over the full study period (mean difference (95% CI) QALYs: -0.10 (-0.20; 0.002); costs: EUR 106 (-80; 293)). CONCLUSIONS: For both the shorter (3-6 months) and longer term (12-24 months), offering the Healthy Heart programme to high-cardiovascular-risk patients did not improve their lifestyle behaviour nor cardiovascular risk and was not cost-effective on a population level.
