JAMA & ARCHIVES
Arch Fam Med
SEARCH
GO TO ADVANCED SEARCH
HOME  PAST ISSUES  TOPIC COLLECTIONS  CME  PHYSICIAN JOBS  CONTACT US  HELP
Institution: STANFORD Univ Med Center  | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In
  Vol. 6 No. 4, July 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

Change in Coronary Risk and Coronary Risk Factor Levels in Couples Following Lifestyle Intervention

The British Family Heart Study

Stephen D. M. Pyke, MSc; David A. Wood, MSc, FRCP; Kinmonth Ann-Louise, MD, MSc, FRCP, FRCGP; Simon G. Thompson, MA

Arch Fam Med. 1997;6(4):354-360.


Abstract

Objectives
To measure the extent to which changes in cardiovascular risk factors were correlated among married couples following a 1-year primary care, familycentered, cardiovascular lifestyle intervention program and to identify couples who benefited most from this prevention program.

Design
Observational study.

Setting
Thirteen primary care centers in 13 towns in Britain.

Participants
A total of 1477 men aged 40 to 59 years and their female partners who attended a family health checkup in 1991 to 1992 from randomly ordered invitations to registered families. After 1 year, 1204 (82%) partner pairs were rescreened.

Main Outcome Measures
One-year changes in cigarette smoking, systolic blood pressure, serum cholesterol level, blood glucose level, and a total coronary risk score.

Results
Comparing men and women partners, baseline values and 1-year changes in overall coronary risk score (Pearson r=0.27 and r=0.20, respectively), cigarette smoking, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and glucose levels were all positively correlated (all P<.001 except smoking cessation, P=.03). Changes in cholesterol levels and systolic blood pressure were also associated with partner's baseline measurement (P≤.01 in both men and women).

Conclusions
Men and women who benefit most from risk factor reductions have partners who also tend to benefit most. Conversely, men and women who enjoy little or no benefit have partners who tend to have similarly small benefits. It is likely that lifestyle intervention targeted at men and women as couples rather than as individuals may result in a greater reduction in cardiovascular risk factors, possibly through mutual reinforcement of lifestyle changes.



Author Affiliations

for the Family Heart Study Group

From the Medical Statistics Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London (Messrs Pyke and Thompson), the Department of Clinical Epidemiology, National Heart and Lung Institute, London (Dr Wood), and the Primary Medical Care Group, University of Southampton, Southhampton (Dr Kinmonth), England.



THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Spousal Concordance for Major Coronary Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Di Castelnuovo et al.
Am J Epidemiol 2009;169:1-8.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Global Secondary Prevention Strategies to Limit Event Recurrence After Myocardial Infarction: Results of the GOSPEL Study, a Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial From the Italian Cardiac Rehabilitation Network
Giannuzzi et al.
Arch Intern Med 2008;168:2194-2204.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Screening of family members of patients with premature coronary heart disease: Results from the EUROASPIRE II family survey
De Sutter et al.
Eur Heart J 2003;24:249-257.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Patients, families and populations at high risk for coronary heart disease
Higgins
Eur Heart J 2001;22:1682-1690.
 

Change in Coronary Risk Factor Levels in Couples After Lifestyle Intervention
Anderson-Grant
Arch Fam Med 1998;7:405-405.
FULL TEXT  

SUCCESSFUL FAMILY-BASED RISK FACTOR REDUCTION
JWatch General 1997;1997:3-3.
FULL TEXT  

Family-Centered Preventive Counseling for Coronary Heart Disease Risk Factors: Is It Time for a Randomized Clinical Trial?
Eaton
Arch Fam Med 1997;6:361-362.
ABSTRACT  




HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | PHYSICIAN JOBS | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1997 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.