Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

The effect of cardiorespiratory fitness assessment in preventive health checks: a randomised controlled trial

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Harvard

APA

CBE

MLA

Vancouver

Author

Høj, Kirsten ; Vinther Skriver, Mette ; Terkildsen Maindal, Helle ; Christensen, Bo ; Sandbæk, Annelli. / The effect of cardiorespiratory fitness assessment in preventive health checks : a randomised controlled trial. I: European Journal of Public Health. 2018 ; Bind 28, Nr. 1. s. 173-179.

Bibtex

@article{28a53897d0464b4091dd91b6aeba5a14,
title = "The effect of cardiorespiratory fitness assessment in preventive health checks: a randomised controlled trial",
abstract = "Background: Poor cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) increases morbidity and mortality risks. Routine CRF assessment in clinical practice has thus been advocated, but little is known about the effect. In this study, we investigated the effect of CRF assessment on CRF in a preventive health check programme.Methods: We used a randomised design, in which we invited 4153 middle-aged adults and included 2201 participants who received a preventive health check with CRF assessment (intervention) or without CRF assessment (control). After 1 year, participants were examined. The primary outcomes were adjusted absolute (l/min), relative (ml/kg/min), and poor ({\%}) CRF assessed by the Astrand-Ryhming test. We adjusted for baseline physical activity and intra-cluster correlation within general practices.Results: A total of 901 attended the 1-year follow-up. In the intervention group, absolute CRF, relative CRF, and poor CRF were 2.7 l/min (95{\%} confidence interval [CI]: 2.6; 2.8), 34.5 ml/kg/min (95{\%} CI: 33.5; 35.4), and 31.0{\%} (95{\%} CI: 26.8; 35.2). In the control group, the corresponding figures were 2.8 l/min (95{\%} CI: 2.7; 2.9), 35.2 ml/kg/min (95{\%} CI: 34.2; 36.1), and 25.9{\%} (95{\%} CI: 21.8; 30.0). Adjusted absolute CRF was lower in the intervention group (-0.1 l/min [95{\%} CI: -0.2; -0.01]). Adjusted relative CRF (-0.7 ml/kg/min [95{\%} CI: -2.0; 0.6]) and poor CRF (5.0{\%} [95{\%} CI: -0.002; 10.1]) did not differ between groups. No differences were found when adjusting for potential confounding factors.Conclusion: Preventive health checks with CRF assessment did not provide higher CRF levels at 1-year follow-up than preventive health checks without CRF assessment.",
keywords = "Journal Article",
author = "Kirsten H{\o}j and {Vinther Skriver}, Mette and {Terkildsen Maindal}, Helle and Bo Christensen and Annelli Sandb{\ae}k",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/eurpub/ckx108",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "173--179",
journal = "European Journal of Public Health",
issn = "1101-1262",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of cardiorespiratory fitness assessment in preventive health checks

T2 - a randomised controlled trial

AU - Høj, Kirsten

AU - Vinther Skriver, Mette

AU - Terkildsen Maindal, Helle

AU - Christensen, Bo

AU - Sandbæk, Annelli

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - Background: Poor cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) increases morbidity and mortality risks. Routine CRF assessment in clinical practice has thus been advocated, but little is known about the effect. In this study, we investigated the effect of CRF assessment on CRF in a preventive health check programme.Methods: We used a randomised design, in which we invited 4153 middle-aged adults and included 2201 participants who received a preventive health check with CRF assessment (intervention) or without CRF assessment (control). After 1 year, participants were examined. The primary outcomes were adjusted absolute (l/min), relative (ml/kg/min), and poor (%) CRF assessed by the Astrand-Ryhming test. We adjusted for baseline physical activity and intra-cluster correlation within general practices.Results: A total of 901 attended the 1-year follow-up. In the intervention group, absolute CRF, relative CRF, and poor CRF were 2.7 l/min (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6; 2.8), 34.5 ml/kg/min (95% CI: 33.5; 35.4), and 31.0% (95% CI: 26.8; 35.2). In the control group, the corresponding figures were 2.8 l/min (95% CI: 2.7; 2.9), 35.2 ml/kg/min (95% CI: 34.2; 36.1), and 25.9% (95% CI: 21.8; 30.0). Adjusted absolute CRF was lower in the intervention group (-0.1 l/min [95% CI: -0.2; -0.01]). Adjusted relative CRF (-0.7 ml/kg/min [95% CI: -2.0; 0.6]) and poor CRF (5.0% [95% CI: -0.002; 10.1]) did not differ between groups. No differences were found when adjusting for potential confounding factors.Conclusion: Preventive health checks with CRF assessment did not provide higher CRF levels at 1-year follow-up than preventive health checks without CRF assessment.

AB - Background: Poor cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) increases morbidity and mortality risks. Routine CRF assessment in clinical practice has thus been advocated, but little is known about the effect. In this study, we investigated the effect of CRF assessment on CRF in a preventive health check programme.Methods: We used a randomised design, in which we invited 4153 middle-aged adults and included 2201 participants who received a preventive health check with CRF assessment (intervention) or without CRF assessment (control). After 1 year, participants were examined. The primary outcomes were adjusted absolute (l/min), relative (ml/kg/min), and poor (%) CRF assessed by the Astrand-Ryhming test. We adjusted for baseline physical activity and intra-cluster correlation within general practices.Results: A total of 901 attended the 1-year follow-up. In the intervention group, absolute CRF, relative CRF, and poor CRF were 2.7 l/min (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.6; 2.8), 34.5 ml/kg/min (95% CI: 33.5; 35.4), and 31.0% (95% CI: 26.8; 35.2). In the control group, the corresponding figures were 2.8 l/min (95% CI: 2.7; 2.9), 35.2 ml/kg/min (95% CI: 34.2; 36.1), and 25.9% (95% CI: 21.8; 30.0). Adjusted absolute CRF was lower in the intervention group (-0.1 l/min [95% CI: -0.2; -0.01]). Adjusted relative CRF (-0.7 ml/kg/min [95% CI: -2.0; 0.6]) and poor CRF (5.0% [95% CI: -0.002; 10.1]) did not differ between groups. No differences were found when adjusting for potential confounding factors.Conclusion: Preventive health checks with CRF assessment did not provide higher CRF levels at 1-year follow-up than preventive health checks without CRF assessment.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1093/eurpub/ckx108

DO - 10.1093/eurpub/ckx108

M3 - Journal article

VL - 28

SP - 173

EP - 179

JO - European Journal of Public Health

JF - European Journal of Public Health

SN - 1101-1262

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 51787074