Barriers to apply cardiovascular prediction rules in primary care: a postal survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Although cardiovascular prediction rules are recommended by guidelines to evaluate global cardiovascular risk for primary prevention, they are rarely used in primary care. Little is known about barriers for application. The objective of this study was to evaluate barriers impeding the application of cardiovascular prediction rules in primary prevention.Methods
We performed a postal survey among general physicians in two Swiss Cantons by a purpose designed questionnaire.Results
356 of 772 dispatched questionnaires were returned (response rate 49.3%). About three quarters (74%) of general physicians rarely or never use cardiovascular prediction rules. Most often stated barriers to apply prediction rules among rarely- or never-users are doubts concerning over-simplification of risk assessment using these instruments (58%) and potential risk of (medical) over-treatment (54%). 57% report that the numerical information resulting from prediction rules is often not helpful for decision-making in practice.Conclusion
If regular application of cardiovascular prediction rules in primary care is in demand additional interventions are needed to increase acceptance of these tools for patient management among general physicians.
SUBMITTER: Eichler K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1766351 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Barriers to apply cardiovascular prediction rules in primary care: a postal survey.
Eichler Klaus K Zoller Marco M Tschudi Peter P Steurer Johann J
BMC family practice 20070103
<h4>Background</h4>Although cardiovascular prediction rules are recommended by guidelines to evaluate global cardiovascular risk for primary prevention, they are rarely used in primary care. Little is known about barriers for application. The objective of this study was to evaluate barriers impeding the application of cardiovascular prediction rules in primary prevention.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a postal survey among general physicians in two Swiss Cantons by a purpose designed questionnaire ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular clinical prediction rules (CPRs) are widely used in primary care. They accumulate research evidence through derivation, external validation, and impact studies. However, existing knowledge about the influence of research evidence on the use of CPRs is limited. Therefore, we explored how primary care clinicians' perceptions of and experiences with research influence their use of cardiovascular CPRs.MethodsWe conducted an exploratory qualitative interview study with thematic analysis. Primary care clinicians were recruited from the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho) region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). We used purposeful sampling to ensure maximum variation within the participant group. Data were collected by conducting semi-structured online interviews. We analyzed data using inductive thematic analysis to identify commonalities and differences within themes.ResultsOf 29 primary care clinicians who completed the questionnaire, 15 participated in the interview. We identified two main themes relating to the influence of clinicians' perceptions of and experiences with cardiovascular CPR research on their decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs: "Seek and judge" and "be acquainted and assume." When clinicians are familiar with, trust, and feel confident in using research evidence, they might actively search and assess the evidence, which may then influence their decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs. However, clinicians, who are unfamiliar with, distrust, or find it challenging to use research evidence, might be passively acquainted with evidence but do not make their own judgment on the trustworthiness of such evidence. Therefore, these clinicians might not rely on research evidence when making decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs.ConclusionsClinicians' perceptions and experiences could influence how they use research evidence in decisions about using cardiovascular CPRs. This implies, when promoting evidence-based decisions, it might be useful to target clinicians' unfamiliarity, distrust, and challenges regarding the use of research evidence rather than focusing only on their knowledge and skills. Further, because clinicians often rely on evidence-unrelated factors, guideline developers and policymakers should recommend cardiovascular CPRs supported by high-quality evidence.
| S-EPMC10512575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Following appropriate validation, clinical prediction rules (CPRs) should undergo impact analysis to evaluate their effect on patient care. The aim of this systematic review is to narratively review and critically appraise CPR impact analysis studies relevant to primary care.Primary care.Adults and children.Studies that implemented the CPR compared to usual care were included.Randomised controlled trial (RCT), controlled before-after, and interrupted time series.Physician behaviour and/or patient outcomes.A total of 18 studies, incorporating 14 unique CPRs, were included. The main study design was RCT (n=13). Overall, 10 studies reported an improvement in primary outcome with CPR implementation. Of 6 musculoskeletal studies, 5 were effective in altering targeted physician behaviour in ordering imaging for patients presenting with ankle, knee and neck musculoskeletal injuries. Of 6 cardiovascular studies, 4 implemented cardiovascular risk scores, and 3 reported no impact on physician behaviour outcomes, such as prescribing and referral, or patient outcomes, such as reduction in serum lipid levels. 2 studies examined CPRs in decision-making for patients presenting with chest pain and reduced inappropriate admissions. Of 5 respiratory studies, 2 were effective in reducing antibiotic prescribing for sore throat following CPR implementation. Overall, study methodological quality was often unclear due to incomplete reporting.Despite increasing interest in developing and validating CPRs relevant to primary care, relatively few have gone through impact analysis. To date, research has focused on a small number of CPRs across few clinical domains only.
| S-EPMC4800123 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: The feasibility of randomized trials often depends on successful patient recruitment. Although numerous recruitment barriers have been identified it is unclear which of them complicate recruitment most. Also, most surveys have focused on the patients' perspective of recruitment barriers whereas the perspective of recruiting physicians has received less attention. Therefore, our aim was to conduct a postal survey among recruiting physicians of a multi-center trial to weigh barriers according to their impact on recruitment. METHODS: We identified any potential recruitment barriers from the literature and from our own experience with a multi-center trial of respiratory rehabilitation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We developed and pilot-tested a self-administered questionnaire where recruiting physicians were asked to express their agreement with statements about recruitment barriers on a Likert-type scale from 1 (full agreement with statement = very substantial recruitment barrier) to 7 (no agreement with statement = no recruitment barrier). RESULTS: 38 of 55 recruiting physicians returned questionnaires (69% response rate), of which 35 could be analyzed (64% useable response rate). Recruiting physicians reported that "time constraints" (median agreement of 3, interquartile range 2-5) had the most negative impact on recruitment followed by "difficulties including identified eligible patients" (median agreement of 5, IQR 3-6). Other barriers such as "trial design barriers", "lack of access to treatment", "individual barriers of recruiting physicians" or "insufficient training of recruiting physicians" were perceived to have little or no impact on patient recruitment. CONCLUSION: Physicians perceived time constraints as the most relevant recruitment barrier in a randomized trial. To overcome recruitment barriers interventions, that are affordable for both industry- and investigator-driven trials, need to be developed and tested in randomized trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN84612310.
| S-EPMC2653070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany patients consult their primary care physician with persistent somatic symptoms such as pain or sickness. Quite often these consultations and further diagnostic measures yield no medical explanation for the symptoms - patients and physicians are left in uncertainty. In fact, diagnostic and treatment barriers in primary care hinder timely health-care provision for patients suffering from persistent somatic symptoms (PSS). The significance of individual barriers is still unknown. We compare and quantify these barriers from the perspective of primary care physicians and identify subpopulations of primary care physicians who experience particular barriers as most severe.MethodsWe mailed a questionnaire to primary care physicians (PCP) in Germany and asked them which barriers they consider most important. We invited a random sample of 12,004 primary care physicians in eight federal states in Germany. Physicians provided anonymous mailed or online responses. We also mailed a postcard to announce the survey and a mail reminder. Main measures were Likert rating scales of items relating to barriers in the diagnosis and treatment of PSS in primary care. Information on demography and medical practice were also collected.ResultsWe analyzed 1719 data sets from 1829 respondents. PCPs showed strongest agreement with statements regarding (1.) their lack of knowledge about treatment guidelines, (2.) their perceptions that patients with PSS would expect symptom relief, (3.) their concern to overlook physical disease in these patients, and (4.) their usage of psychotropic drugs with these patients. More experienced PCPs were better able to cope with the possibility of overlooking physical disease than those less experienced.ConclusionsThe PCPs in our survey answered that the obligation to rule out severe physical disease and the demand to relieve patients from symptoms belong to the most severe barriers for adequate treatment and diagnosis. Moreover, many physicians admitted to not knowing the appropriate treatment guidelines for these patients. Based on our results, raising awareness of guidelines and improving knowledge about the management of persistent somatic symptoms appear to be promising approaches for overcoming the barriers to diagnosis and treatment of persistent somatic symptoms in primary care.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (Deutschen Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS) https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do The date the study was registered: October 2nd 2017 The date the first participant was enrolled: February 9th 2018 DRKS-ID: DRKS00012942.
| S-EPMC8017612 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveClinical prediction rules (CPRs) followed by D-dimer testing were shown to safely rule out venous thromboembolism (VTE) in about half of all suspected patients in controlled and experienced study settings. Yet, its real-life impact in primary care is unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the real-life impact of CPRs for suspected VTE in primary care.DesignCross-sectional cohort study.SettingPrimary care in the Netherlands.ParticipantsPatients with suspected deep venous thrombosis (n=993) and suspected pulmonary embolism (n=484).InterventionsGeneral practitioners received an educational instruction on how to use CPRs in suspected VTE. We did not rectify incorrect application of the CPR in order to mimic daily clinical care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were the diagnostic failure rate, defined as the 3-month incidence of VTE in the non-referred group, and the efficiency, defined as the proportion of non-referred patients in the total study population. Secondary outcomes were determinants for and consequences of incorrect application of the CPRs.ResultsIn 267 of the included 1477 patients, VTE was confirmed. When CPRs were correctly applied, the failure rate was 1.51% (95% CI 0.77 to 2.86), and the efficiency was 58.1% (95% CI 55.2 to 61.0). However, the CPRs were incorrectly applied in 339 patients, which resulted in an increased failure rate of 3.31% (95% CI 1.07 to 8.76) and a decreased efficiency of 35.7% (95% CI 30.6 to 41.1). The presence of concurrent heart failure increased the likelihood of incorrect application (adjusted OR 3.26; 95% CI 1.47 to 7.21).ConclusionsCorrect application of CPRs for VTE in primary care is associated with an acceptable low failure rate at a high efficiency. Importantly, in nearly a quarter of patients, the CPRs were incorrectly applied that resulted in a higher failure rate and a considerably lower efficiency.
| S-EPMC7772307 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are two approaches to care during the third stage of labour: Active management includes three components: administration of a prophylactic uterotonic drug, cord clamping and controlled cord traction. For physiological care, intervention occurs only if there is clinical need. Evidence to guide care during the third stage is limited and there is variation in recommendations which may contribute to differences in practice. This paper describes current UK practice during the third stage of labour.MethodsA postal survey of 2230 fellows and members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and 2400 members of the Royal College of Midwives was undertaken. Respondents were asked about care during the third stage of labour, for vaginal and caesarean births and their views on the need for more evidence to guide care in the third stage. The data were analysed in Excel and presented as descriptive statistics.Results1189 (53%) fellows and members of the RCOG and 1702 (71%) midwives responded, of whom 926 (78%) and 1297 (76%) respectively had conducted or supervised births in the last year. 93% (863/926) of obstetricians and 73% (942/1297) of midwives report 'always or usually' using active management. 66% (611/926) of obstetricians and 33% (430/1297) of midwives give the uterotonic drug with delivery of the anterior shoulder; this was intramuscular Syntometrine(R) for 79% (728/926) and 86% (1118/1293) respectively. For term births, 74% (682/926) of obstetricians and 41% (526/1297) of midwives clamp the cord within 20 seconds, as do 57% (523/926) and 55% (707/1297) for preterm births. Controlled cord traction was used by 94% of both obstetricians and midwives. For caesarean births, intravenous oxytocin was the uterotonic used by 90% (837/926) of obstetricians; 79% (726/926) clamp the cord within 20 seconds for term births as do 63% (576/926) for preterm births.Physiological management was used 'always or usually' by 2% (21/926) of obstetricians and 9% (121/1297) of midwives. 81% (747/926) of obstetricians and 89% (1151/1297) of midwives thought more evidence from randomised trials was needed; the most popular question was when is best to clamp the cord.ConclusionsActive management of the third stage of labour is widely used by both obstetricians and midwives in the UK. Syntometrine(R) is usually used for vaginal births and oxytocin for caesarean births; when this is given and when the cord is clamped varies.
| S-EPMC2885994 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To address three methodological challenges when attempting to measure patients' experiences and views of a system of inter-related health services rather than a single service: the feasibility of a population survey for identifying system users, the optimal recall period for system use, and the mode of administration which is most feasible and representative in the context of routine measurement of system performance.Postal survey of a random sample of 900 members of the general population and market research telephone survey of quota sample of 1000 members of the general population.Response rates to the postal and market research telephone population surveys were 51% (457 out of 893 receiving the questionnaire) and 9% (1014 out of 11924 contactable telephone numbers) respectively. Both surveys were able to identify users of the system in the previous three months: 22% (99/457) of postal and 15% (151/1000) of telephone survey respondents. For both surveys, recall of event occurrence reduced by a half after four weeks. The telephone survey more accurately estimated use of individual services within the system than the postal survey. Experiences and views of events remained reasonably stable over the three month recall time period for both modes of administration. Even though the response rate was lower, the telephone survey was more representative of the population, was faster and cheaper to undertake, and had fewer missing values.It is possible to identify users of a health care system using a population survey. A recall period of three months can be used to estimate experiences and views but one month is more accurate for estimating use of the system. A quota sample market research telephone survey gives a low response rate yet is more representative and accurate than a postal survey of a random sample of the population.
| S-EPMC2905427 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundResearchers should examine existing evidence to determine the need for a new study. It is unknown whether developers evaluate existing evidence to justify new cardiovascular clinical prediction rules (CPRs).ObjectiveWe aimed to assess whether authors of cardiovascular CPRs cited existing CPRs, why some authors did not cite existing CPRs, and why they thought existing CPRs were insufficient.MethodDerivation studies of cardiovascular CPRs from the International Register of Clinical Prediction Rules for Primary Care were evaluated. We reviewed the introduction sections to determine whether existing CPRs were cited. Using thematic content analysis, the stated reasons for determining existing cardiovascular CPRs insufficient were explored. Study authors were surveyed via e-mail and post. We asked whether they were aware of any existing cardiovascular CPRs at the time of derivation, how they searched for existing CPRs, and whether they thought it was important to cite existing CPRs.ResultsOf 85 derivation studies included, 48 (56.5%) cited existing CPRs, 33 (38.8%) did not cite any CPR, and four (4.7%) declared there was none to cite. Content analysis identified five categories of existing CPRs insufficiency related to: (1) derivation (5 studies; 11.4% of 44), (2) construct (31 studies; 70.5%), (3) performance (10 studies; 22.7%), (4) transferability (13 studies; 29.5%), and (5) evidence (8 studies; 18.2%). Authors of 54 derivation studies (71.1% of 76 authors contacted) responded to the survey. Twenty-five authors (46.3%) reported they were aware of existing CPR at the time of derivation. Twenty-nine authors (53.7%) declared they conducted a systematic search to identify existing CPRs. Most authors (90.7%) indicated citing existing CPRs was important.ConclusionCardiovascular CPRs are often developed without citing existing CPRs although most authors agree it is important. Common justifications for new CPRs concerned construct, including choice of predictor variables or relevance of outcomes. Developers should clearly justify why new CPRs are needed with reference to existing CPRs to avoid unnecessary duplication.
| S-EPMC5462434 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCardiovascular disease risk calculators can inform and guide preventive strategies and treatment decisions by clinicians and patients. However, their uptake in primary care has been slow despite the recommendation in national cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. Identifying the barriers to the implementation of cardiovascular disease risk calculators is essential for promoting their adoption.MethodsThe authors qualitatively analyzed structured physician educator notes written during an outreach education intervention with 44 small- and medium-sized primary care clinics that participated in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality‒funded EvidenceNOW Healthy Hearts Northwest trial. The authors coded barriers to the implementation of cardiovascular disease risk calculation and aligned them to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.ResultsThe authors identified 13 barriers from the physician educators' notes. The majority (n=8, 62%) mapped to the framework's Inner Setting domain. The 5 most commonly noted barriers were (1) time constraints to use a calculator (N=23 clinics), (2) limitations to accessing a calculator or the necessary information to use a calculator (N=22 clinics), (3) no or minimal buy-in from clinicians or staff to use a calculator (N=19 clinics), (4) reported patient fear of side effects from statin medications or patient dislike of taking medications per the guidelines (N=17 clinics), and (5) lack of documented clinic workflow for using a calculator (N=16 clinics).ConclusionsTo improve the uptake of cardiovascular disease risk calculation in primary care, future cardiovascular disease prevention and implementation research should consider tailoring interventions to the common barriers to implementing cardiovascular disease risk calculation.Trial registrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02839382.
| S-EPMC8638790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Most non-dialysis dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients are cared for by their primary care physicians (PCPs). Studies suggest many CKD patients receive suboptimal care. Recently, CKD clinical practice guidelines were updated with additional emphasis on albuminuria.We performed an internet-based, cross-sectional survey of active PCPs in the United States using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. We explored CKD guideline familiarity, self-reported practice behaviors, and attitudinal and external barriers to implementing guideline recommendations, including albuminuria testing.Of 12,034 PCPs targeted, 848 opened a study email, 165 (19.5%) responded. Most respondents (88%) spent ?50% of their time in clinical care. Respondents were generally in private practice (46%). Most PCPs (96%) felt that eGFR values were helpful. Approximately, 75% and 91% of PCPs reported testing for albuminuria in non-diabetic hypertensive patients with an eGFR?>?60 ml/min/1.73 m2 and?<?60 ml/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Barriers to albuminuria testing included a lack of effect on management, limited time, and the perceived absence of guidelines recommending testing. While PCPs expressed high levels of agreement with the definition of CKD, 30% were concerned with overdiagnosis in older adults with an eGFR in the CKD stage 3a range. Most PCPs felt that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/ angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) improved outcomes in CKD, though agreement was lower with severe vs. moderate albuminuria (78% vs. 85%, respectively, p?=?0.03). Many PCPs (51%) reported being unfamiliar with CKD guidelines, but were receptive to systematic interventions to improve their CKD care.PCPs generally agree with CKD clinical practice guidelines regarding CKD definition and albuminuria testing. However, future interventions are necessary to improve PCPs' familiarity with CKD guidelines, overcome barriers to albuminuria testing and, assist PCPs in targeting ACEi/ARBs to the patients most likely to benefit.
| S-EPMC4021215 | biostudies-other