Effects of Health Promotion Since Childhood

All clinical practice guidelines indicate healthy lifestyle recommendations and, as cardiologists, we have slowly but surely implemented such practice.

promoción de los hábitos saludables desde la niñez

However, patients come to us once they have had health problems. What would happen if people had these recommendations at an earlier stage in their life? Would that prevent them from ever becoming patients?

There was some logic to that idea, but it had to be tested in the long term to see if the lifestyle change provoked was sustained over time and if new interventions were necessary.

That is why this study tested the long-term impact of health promotion on preschool children in an urban low-income area of Colombia (phase 1). Additionally, researchers assessed the effects of a new community intervention (phase 2).


Read also: ACC 2019 | The New ACC/AHA Guidelines on Primary Prevention Focus on Life Style, Diet and Socioeconomic Factors.


In phase 1, researchers conducted an analysis of knowledge, attitudes, and habits toward a healthy lifestyle, and ideal cardiovascular health scores in 1216 children. Among them, 596 had previously received health promotion recommendations at 3 to 5 years old. The remaining 620 subjects had not taken part in any prior intervention.

In phase 2, all children were randomized 1:1 to undergo either an additional 4-month educational intervention (the SI! Program) or no other intervention (the control group).

The primary endpoint were the changes from baseline in healthy lifestyle and ideal cardiovascular health scores.


Read also: Maintaining Physical Activity After an Acute Myocardial Infarction Reduces Mortality.


In phase 1, about 85% of children did not have a healthy lifestyle. Those who had previously taken part in a preschool intervention at 3 to 5 years old showed a practically negligible residual effect compared with those who took part in an intervention at 9 to 13 years old.

In phase 2, there was no difference between the 4-month intervention group and the control group.

All of that notwithstanding, there was a dose-response effect. The maximal benefit was observed in children who attended >75% of the scheduled intervention program.


Read also: The Crucial Significance of Lifestyle Changes.


The difference in healthy lifestyle changes between the high- and low-adherence groups was 3.72 points (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

While there were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups, high adherence rates to health promotion interventions might improve future cardiovascular health.

New interventions may be required at multiple stages to induce sustained health promotion effects.

Original Title: Sustainability of and Adherence to Preschool Health Promotion Among Children 9 to 13 Years Old.

Reference: Rodrigo Fernández-Jiménez et al. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;75:1565–78.


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

We are interested in your opinion. Please, leave your comments, thoughts, questions, etc., below. They will be most welcome.

More articles by this author

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...

Patients at High Risk of Bleeding After Coronary Angioplasty: Are Risk Assessment Tools ARC-HBR and PRECISE-DAPT Useful?

Patients undergoing coronary stenting typically receive dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 6 to 12 months, consisting of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and aspirin. While DAPT...

ACC 2025 | WARRIOR: Ischemia in Women with Non-Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Approximately half of all women with symptomatic ischemia who undergo coronary angiography are found to have non-obstructive coronary artery disease ((ischemia and non-obstructive coronary...

ACC 2025 | FLAVOUR II: Angiography-Derived FFR-Guided vs. IVUS-Guided PCI

Physiological assessment is effective when it comes to decision-making for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, despite the available evidence, its use remains limited. AngioFFR...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

SMART-CHOICE 3 | Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel vs Aspirin Monotherapy in High Risk Patients after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Courtesy of Dr. Juan Manuel Pérez. After post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) standard duration dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), the optimal long term monotherapy strategy is...

RACE Trial: Effect of Balloon Pulmonary Angioplasty and Riociguat on Right Ventricular Afterload and Function in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension

Even though pulmonary endarterectomy is the treatment of choice for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH), up to 40% of patients are not candidates because...

iFR- vs. FFR-Guided Coronary Revascularization: 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

The assessment of coronary stenosis using coronary physiology has become a key tool in guiding revascularization. The two most widely used techniques are fractional...