4.0 Article

Utilizing the Probation Office as an Opportunity to Screen for Cardiometabolic Outcomes: A Feasibility Study

期刊

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jchc.20.11.0102

关键词

screening; diabetes; hypertension; hypercholesterolemia; probation health care access

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the feasibility of using the probation office setting to screen and assess cardiometabolic risk factors in adults. The findings suggest that it is possible to identify high-risk individuals during routine probation office visits, and referral for treatment can be provided to improve long-term health outcomes.
This cross-sectional study examined whether the probation office setting was feasible to screen adults on probation for cardiometabolic risk factors, measure risk profiles, and estimate the prevalence of obesity, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes. During June and August 2019, screening included blood pressure, anthropometrics, total and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and glucose. A survey included demographics, medical history, and current medication. The participation rate was 36% (N = 202). The screening identified 5% had hypercholesterolemia, 38% of men and 50% of women had low HDL cholesterol, 70% had overweight/obesity, 31% of men and 55% of women had elevated waist circumferences, and 26.7% had Stage 1 hypertension. Of individuals with a history of hypertension (n = 74), 77% had elevated blood pressure. Of those with a history of diabetes (n = 27), 22% had hyperglycemia, independent of whether they reported being prescribed medication. The screening identified 11% with Stage 2 hypertension, 27% with Stage 1 hypertension, 22% with elevated blood pressure, and 5% with hyperglycemia. Our findings suggest it is feasible to identify individuals at high risk for cardiometabolic disorders during routine probation office visits. These data can then be used to provide referrals for treatment to improve long-term health outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据