Dataset Information

General practitioners' justifications for therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular prevention: an empirically grounded typology.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To construct a typology of general practitioners' (GPs) responses regarding their justification of therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular primary prevention for high-risk patients with hypertension. DESIGN:Empirically grounded construction of typology. Types were defined by attributes derived from the qualitative analysis of GPs' reported reasons for inaction. PARTICIPANTS:256 GPs randomised in the intervention group of a cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING:GPs members of 23 French Regional Colleges of Teachers in General Practice, included in the EffectS of a multifaceted intervention on CArdiovascular risk factors in high-risk hyPErtensive patients (ESCAPE) trial. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:The database consisted of 2638 written responses given by the GPs to an open-ended question asking for the reasons why drug treatment was not changed as suggested by the national guidelines. All answers were coded using constant comparison analysis. A matrix analysis of codes per GP allowed the construction of a response typology, where types were defined by codes as attributes. Initial coding and definition of types were performed independently by two teams. RESULTS:Initial coding resulted in a list of 69 codes in the final codebook, representing 4764 coded references in the question responses. A typology including seven types was constructed. 100 GPs were allocated to one and only one of these types, while 25 GPs did not provide enough data to allow classification. Types (numbers of GPs allocated) were: 'optimists' (28), 'negotiators' (20), 'checkers' (15), 'contextualisers' (13), 'cautious' (11), 'rounders' (8) and 'scientists' (5). For the 36 GPs that provided 50 or more coded references, analysis of the code evolution over time and across patients showed a consistent belonging to the initial type for any given GP. CONCLUSION:This typology could provide GPs with some insight into their general ways of considering changes in the treatment/management of cardiovascular risk factors and guide design of specific physician-centred interventions to reduce inappropriate inaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT00348855.

SUBMITTER: Lebeau JP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4874143 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

General practitioners' justifications for therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular prevention: an empirically grounded typology.

Lebeau Jean-Pierre JP Cadwallader Jean-Sébastien JS Vaillant-Roussel Hélène H Pouchain Denis D Yaouanc Virginie V Aubin-Auger Isabelle I Mercier Alain A Rusch Emmanuel E Remmen Roy R Vermeire Etienne E Hendrickx Kristin K

BMJ open 20160513 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To construct a typology of general practitioners' (GPs) responses regarding their justification of therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular primary prevention for high-risk patients with hypertension.<h4>Design</h4>Empirically grounded construction of typology. Types were defined by attributes derived from the qualitative analysis of GPs' reported reasons for inaction.<h4>Participants</h4>256 GPs randomised in the intervention group of a cluster randomised controlled trial.<h4>Set ...[more]

PMID: 27178974

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand general practitioners' (GPs) use of individual risk factors (blood pressure and cholesterol levels) versus absolute risk in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management decision-making.DesignRandomised experiment. Absolute risk, systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol ratio (total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (TC/HDL)) and age were systematically varied in hypothetical cases. High absolute risk was defined as 5-year risk of a cardiovascular event >15%, high blood pressure levels varied between SBP 147 and 179?mm?Hg and high cholesterol (TC/HDL ratio) between 6.5 and 7.2?mmol/L.Setting4 GP conferences in Australia.Participants144 Australian GPs.OutcomesGPs indicated whether they would prescribe cholesterol and/or blood pressure lowering medication. Analyses involved logistic regression.ResultsFor patients with high blood pressure: 93% (95% CI 86% to 96%) of high absolute risk patients and 83% (95% CI 76% to 88%) of lower absolute risk patients were prescribed blood pressure medication. Conversely, 30% (95% CI 25% to 36%) of lower blood pressure patients were prescribed blood pressure medication if absolute risk was high and 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%) if lower. 69% of high cholesterol/high absolute risk patients were prescribed cholesterol medication (95% CI 61% to 77%) versus 34% of high cholesterol/lower absolute risk patients (95% CI 28% to 41%). 36% of patients with lower cholesterol (95% CI 30% to 43%) were prescribed cholesterol medication if absolute risk was high versus 10% if lower (95% CI 8% to 13%).ConclusionsGPs' decision-making was more consistent with the management of individual risk factors than an absolute risk approach, especially when prescribing blood pressure medication. The results suggest medical treatment of lower risk patients (5-year risk of CVD event <15%) with mildly elevated blood pressure or cholesterol levels is likely to occur even when an absolute risk assessment is specifically provided. The results indicate a need for improving uptake of absolute risk guidelines and GP understanding of the rationale for using absolute risk.

Project description:ObjectiveCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, and prevention of CVD is a public health priority. This paper aims to describe the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) on the prevention of CVD across different contexts.DesignSystematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies using the Enhancing Transparency of Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative research (ENTREQ) framework.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL from database inception to April 2018.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe included qualitative studies on the perspectives of GPs on CVD prevention.Data extraction and synthesisWe used HyperRESEARCH to code the primary papers and identified themes.ResultsWe selected 34 studies involving 1223 participants across nine countries. We identified six themes: defining own primary role (duty to prescribe medication, refraining from risking patients' lives, mediating between patients and specialists, delegating responsibility to patients, providing holistic care); trusting external expertise (depending on credible evidence and opinion, entrusting care to other health professionals, integrating into patient context); motivating behavioural change for prevention (highlighting tangible improvements, negotiating patient acceptance, enabling autonomy and empowerment, harnessing the power of fear, disappointment with futility of advice); recognising and accepting patient capacities (ascertaining patient's drive for lifestyle change, conceding to ingrained habits, prioritising urgent comorbidities, tailoring to patient environment and literacy); avoiding overmedicalisation (averting long-term dependence on medications, preventing a false sense of security, minimising stress of sickness) and minimising economic burdens (avoiding unjustified costs to patients, delivering practice within budget, alleviating healthcare expenses).ConclusionsGPs sought to empower patients to prevent CVD, but consideration of patients' individual factors was challenging. Community-based strategies for assessing CVD risk involving other health professionals, and decision aids that address the individuality of the patient's health and environment, may support GPs in their decisions regarding CVD prevention.

Project description:IntroductionThe participation of general practitioners (GPs) in primary care research is variable and often poor. We aimed to develop a substantive and empirical theoretical framework to explain GPs' decision-making process to participate in research.MethodsWe used the grounded theory approach to construct a substantive theory to explain the decision-making process of GPs to participate in research activities. Five in-depth interviews and four focus group discussions were conducted among 21 GPs. Purposeful sampling followed by theoretical sampling were used to attempt saturation of the core category. Data were collected using semi-structured open-ended questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and checked prior to analysis. Open line-by-line coding followed by focus coding were used to arrive at a substantive theory. Memoing was used to help bring concepts to higher abstract levels.ResultsThe GPs' decision to participate in research was attributed to their inner drive and appreciation for primary care research and their confidence in managing their social and research environments. The drive and appreciation for research motivated the GPs to undergo research training to enhance their research knowledge, skills and confidence. However, the critical step in the GPs' decision to participate in research was their ability to align their research agenda with priorities in their social environment, which included personal life goals, clinical practice and organisational culture. Perceived support for research, such as funding and technical expertise, facilitated the GPs' participation in research. In addition, prior experiences participating in research also influenced the GPs' confidence in taking part in future research.ConclusionsThe key to GPs deciding to participate in research is whether the research agenda aligns with the priorities in their social environment. Therefore, research training is important, but should be included in further measures and should comply with GPs' social environments and research support.

Project description:BackgroundCommunicating risk is part of primary prevention of coronary heart disease and stroke, collectively referred to as cardiovascular disease (CVD). In Australia, health organisations have promoted an absolute risk approach, thereby raising the question of suitable standardised formats for risk communication.MethodsSixteen formats of risk representation were prepared including statements, icons, graphical formats, alone or in combination, and with variable use of colours. All presented the same risk, i.e., the absolute risk for a 55 year old woman, 16% risk of CVD in five years. Preferences for a five or ten-year timeframe were explored. Australian GPs and consumers were recruited for participation in focus groups, with the data analysed thematically and preferred formats tallied.ResultsThree focus groups with health consumers and three with GPs were held, involving 19 consumers and 18 GPs. Consumers and GPs had similar views on which formats were more easily comprehended and which conveyed 16% risk as a high risk. A simple summation of preferences resulted in three graphical formats (thermometers, vertical bar chart) and one statement format as the top choices. The use of colour to distinguish risk (red, yellow, green) and comparative information (age, sex, smoking status) were important ingredients. Consumers found formats which combined information helpful, such as colour, effect of changing behaviour on risk, or comparison with a healthy older person. GPs preferred formats that helped them relate the information about risk of CVD to their patients, and could be used to motivate patients to change behaviour.Several formats were reported as confusing, such as a percentage risk with no contextual information, line graphs, and icons, particularly those with larger numbers. Whilst consumers and GPs shared preferences, the use of one format for all situations was not recommended. Overall, people across groups felt that risk expressed over five years was preferable to a ten-year risk, the latter being too remote.ConclusionsConsumers and GPs shared preferences for risk representation formats. Both groups liked the option to combine formats and tailor the risk information to reflect a specific individual's risk, to maximise understanding and provide a good basis for discussion.

Project description:Medical overuse is a topic of growing interest in health care systems and especially in primary care. It comprises both over investigation and overtreatment. Quaternary prevention strategies aim at protecting patients from unnecessary or harmful medicine. The objective of this study was to gain a deeper understanding of relevant aspects of medical overuse in primary care from the perspective of German general practitioners (GPs). We focused on the scope, consequences and drivers of medical overuse and strategies to reduce it (=quaternary prevention).We used the qualitative Grounded Theory approach. Theoretical sampling was carried out to recruit GPs in Bavaria, Germany. We accessed the field of research through GPs with academic affiliation, recommendations by interview partners and personal contacts. They differed in terms of primary care experience, gender, region, work experience abroad, academic affiliation, type of specialist training, practice organisation and position. Qualitative in-depth face-to-face interviews with a semi-structured interview guide were conducted (n =?13). The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis was carried out using open and axial coding.GPs defined medical overuse as unnecessary investigations and treatment that lack patient benefit or bear the potential to cause harm. They observed that medical overuse takes place in all three German reimbursement categories: statutory health insurance, private insurance and individual health services (direct payment). GPs criticised the poor acceptance of gate-keeping in German primary care. They referred to a low-threshold referral policy and direct patient access to outpatient secondary care, leading to specialist treatment without clear medical indication. The GPs described various direct drivers of medical overuse within their direct area of influence. They also emphasised indirect drivers related to system or societal processes. The proposed strategies for reducing medical overuse included a well-founded wait-and-see approach, medical education, a trustful doctor-patient relationship, the improvement of primary/health care structures and the involvement of patients and society.GPs are frequently located at the starting point of the diagnostic and treatment process. They have the potential to play a vital role in quaternary prevention. This requires a debate going beyond the medical profession and involving society as a whole.

Dataset Information

General practitioners' justifications for therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular prevention: an empirically grounded typology.

Publications

General practitioners' justifications for therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular prevention: an empirically grounded typology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets