Article Data

  • Views 739
  • Dowloads 136

Original Research

Open Access

DEVELOPMENT AND CASE-CONTROL VALIDATION OF THE CANADIAN MEN’S HEALTH FOUNDATION’S SELF RISK-ASSESSMENT TOOL: “YOU CHECK”

  • Farshad Pourmalek1,2
  • S. Larry Goldenberg1
  • Kendall Ho3
  • Sean C. Skeldon4
  • David M. Patrick2

1Department of Urologic Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

2School of Population and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

3Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

4Department of Family & Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

DOI: 10.22374/1875-6859.13.1.2 Vol.13,Issue 1,May 2017 pp.9-18

Published: 25 May 2017

*Corresponding Author(s): S. Larry Goldenberg E-mail: l.gold@ubc.ca

PDF (1.43 MB)

Abstract

Background and Objective:

To facilitate the engagement of men in the evaluation of their own health status and risk of disease, we have developed and validated the Canadian Men’s Health Foundation’s self-risk assessment tool (“You Check”). In a single questionnaire, the “You Check” tool estimates the 10-year risk for myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes type 2 (DM), osteoporosis (OS), erectile dysfunction (ED), and low testosterone (LT). Additionally, the tool provides the user with his risk-factor profi le for prostate cancer and his current risk of depression (using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale).

 Materials and Methods: 

Known risk factors for each disease were collated, the questionnaire designed, and risk scores for each dis-ease were assigned by clinical experts. A risk formula was developed using the sum of risk scores divided by their own range. We validated the risk models with case-control data from a retrospective review of 400 outpatient records from 4 Vancouver family practice clinics. Maximal correct classifi cation proportions were determined and used as thresholds for categorization of risk to low, medium, or high categories.

 Results: 

For DM, sensitivity and specifi city were 0.86 and 0.96 respectively and the Area Under Curve was 0.88 (95% Confi dence Interval [CI] 0.81-0.94). For MI these values were 0.70 and 0.93, and 0.75 (0.65-0.85); for LT 0.70 and 0.90 and 0.75 (0.66–0.84); for OS 0.70 and 0.86 and 0.70 (0.61–0.80); and for ED 0.42 and 0.96 and 0.66 (0.58–0.75).

Conclusion:

This is the fi rst comprehensive men’s health self-risk assessment tool for 7 important diseases. Moderate internal validity was demonstrated for 5 diseases, meeting the public health objectives of “You Check” which is now in the public domain and under appropriate monitoring and evaluation (https://youcheck.ca).


Keywords

men’s health, risk assessment, risk model, internal validation

Cite and Share

Farshad Pourmalek,S. Larry Goldenberg,Kendall Ho,Sean C. Skeldon,David M. Patrick. DEVELOPMENT AND CASE-CONTROL VALIDATION OF THE CANADIAN MEN’S HEALTH FOUNDATION’S SELF RISK-ASSESSMENT TOOL: “YOU CHECK”. Journal of Men's Health. 2017. 13(1);9-18.

References

1. Goldenberg SL. Status of men’s health in Canada. Can Urol Assoc J 2014 Jul;8(7–8 Suppl 5):S142–4.

2. GBD 2015 Mortality and Causes of Death Collabora-tors. Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specifi c mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1459–44.

3. GBD 2015 DALYs and HALE Collaborators. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 315 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1603–58.

4. GBD 2015 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behav-ioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1659–24.

5. Goldenberg SL. Men’s Health Initiative of British Columbia: connecting the dots. Urol Clin North Am 2012 Feb;39(1):37–51.

6. Fernández-Sáez J, Ruiz-Cantero MT, Guijarro-Garví M, et al. Looking twice at the gender equity index for public health impact. BMC Public Health 2013 Jul 16;13:659.

7. Steyerberg EW, Vergouwe Y. Towards better clini-cal prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation. Eur Heart J 2014 Aug 1;35(29):1925–31.

8. D’Agostino RB Sr, Vasan RS, Pencina MJ, et al. Gen-eral cardiovascular risk profi le for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation 2008 Feb 12;117(6):743–53.

9. Kim DJ, Rockhill B, Colditz GA. Validation of the Har-vard Cancer Risk Index: a prediction tool for individual cancer risk. J Clin Epidemiol 2004 Apr;57(4):332–40.

10. Robinson CA, Agarwal G, Nerenberg K. Validating the CANRISK prognostic model for assessing diabetes risk in Canada’s multi-ethnic population. Chronic Dis Inj Can 2011 Dec;32(1):19–31.

11. Murray CJ, Vos T, Lozano R, et al. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012 Dec 15;380(9859):2197–223.

12. Zhang W, O’Brien N, Forrest JI, et al. Validating a shortened depression scale (10 item CES-D) among HIV-positive people in British Columbia, Canada. PLoS One 2012;7(7):e40793.

13. Morin AJ, Moullec G, Maïano C, et al. Psychometric properties of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in French clinical and nonclinical adults. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 2011 Oct;59(5):327–40.

14. Altman DG, Royston P. What do we mean by validating a prognostic model? Stat Med 2000 Feb 29;19(4):453–73.

15. Steyerberg EW. Clinical Prediction Models. Springer; 2009.

16. Pepe, MS. The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction. Oxford University Press; 2004.

17. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Springer Science; 1993.

18. Swets JA. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 1988 Jun 3;240(4857):1285–93.

19. Goldenberg SL, Pickles T, Chi K. The Intelligent Pa-tient Guide To Prostate Cancer. Vancouver : Intelligent Patient Guide Ltd; 2013.

20. Hoeh MP, Deane LA. PSA screening: A discussion based on the USPSTF recommendations and the AUA and EAU guidelines. J Mens Health 2014 Apr 8; 11(1):10–17.

21. Whittemore AS, Kolonel LN, Wu AH, et al. Prostate cancer in relation to diet, physical activity, and body size in blacks, whites, and Asians in the United States and Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995 May 3;87(9):652–61.

22. Noar SM, Chabot M, Zimmerman RS. Applying health behavior theory to multiple behavior change: considera-tions and approaches. Prev Med 2008 Mar;46(3):275–80.

23. Geusens P, Dinant G. Integrating a gender dimension into osteoporosis and fracture risk research. Gend Med. 2007;4 Suppl B:S147–61.

24. Apgar V. A proposal for a new method of evaluation of the newborn infant. Curr Res Anesth Anal 1953;32:260–7.

25. Teasdale G, Jennett B. Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 1974;2:81–4.

26. Anthony D, Parboteeah S, Saleh M, et al. Norton, Wa-terlow and Braden scores: a review of the literature and a comparison between the scores and clinical judgement. J Clin Nursing 2008;17:646–53.

27. Bainbridge D, Martin J, Arango M, et al. Perioperative and anaesthetic-related mortality in developed and developing countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2012;380:1075–-81.

28. Zhou X, obuchowsk NA, McClish DK. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2011.

29. Thoopputra T, Newby D, Schneider J, et al. Survey of diabetes risk assessment tools: concepts, structure and performance. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 2012 Sep;28(6):485–98.

30. Lindström J, Tuomilehto J. The diabetes risk score: a practical tool to predict type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes Care. 2003 Mar;26(3):725–31.

31. Chen L, Magliano DJ, Balkau B, et al. AUSDRISK: an Australian Type 2 Diabetes Risk Assessment Tool based on demographic, lifestyle and simple anthropometric measures. Med J Aust 2010 Feb 15;192(4):197–202.

32. Woodward M, Brindle P, Tunstall-Pedoe H; et al. Adding social deprivation and family history to cardiovascular risk assessment: the ASSIGN score from the Scottish Heart Health Extended Cohort (SHHEC). Heart 2007 Feb;93(2):172–6. Epub 2006 Nov 7.

33. Conroy RM, Pyörälä K, Fitzgerald AP, et al. Estima-tion of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J 2003 Jun;24(11):987–1003.

34. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, et al. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 2010 Jan;21(1):128–38.

35. Wilson PW, Meigs JB, Sullivan L, et al. Prediction of incident diabetes mellitus in middle-aged adults: the Framingham Off spring Study. Arch Intern Med 2007 May 28;167(10):1068–74.

36. Ridker PM, Paynter NP, Rifai N, et al. C-reactive protein and parental history improve global cardiovascular risk prediction: the Reynolds Risk Score for men. Circula-tion 2008 Nov 25;118(22):2243–51.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,200 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Social Sciences Citation Index Social Sciences Citation Index contains over 3,400 journals across 58 social sciences disciplines, as well as selected items from 3,500 of the world’s leading scientific and technical journals. More than 9.37 million records and 122 million cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences Current Contents - Social & Behavioral Sciences provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in the social and behavioral sciences.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

SCOPUS Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

DOAJ DOAJ is a community-curated online directory that indexes and provides access to high quality, open access, peer-reviewed journals.

CrossRef Crossref makes research outputs easy to find, cite, link, assess, and reuse. Crossref committed to open scholarly infrastructure and collaboration, this is now announcing a very deliberate path.

Portico Portico is a community-supported preservation archive that safeguards access to e-journals, e-books, and digital collections. Our unique, trusted process ensures that the content we preserve will remain accessible and usable for researchers, scholars, and students in the future.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

    Top