Dataset Information

Lipid management in India: a nationwide, cross-sectional physician survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Current international guidelines on dyslipidemia are not concordant on various aspects of management. Also, there are no uniformly accepted Indian guidelines. We, therefore, performed a physician survey to understand lipid management practices in India.

Methods

An anonymous survey questionnaire was administered to gauge physicians' self-reported behavior regarding lipid management aspects. Results were expressed in terms of percentages based on the number of responses obtained.

Results

A total of 404 physicians participated in the survey. Eighty-eight percent respondents ordered a lipid profile before starting statin therapy, and 80% preferred to set lipid targets, though the tools used for calculating cardiovascular risk varied. Atorvastatin was preferred over rosuvastatin in primary prevention (72.9 vs. 32.4%), secondary prevention (54.6 vs. 46.7%), diabetic patients (56.3 vs. 40.3%) and post-ACS (78.3 vs. 34%). High-intensity statins were preferred by 73.7% of respondents in post-ACS cases. Fifty percent doctors chose not to use a statin in diabetic patients, irrespective of their LDL-C levels. The most preferred drug option for managing atherogenic dyslipidemia and moderate hypertriglyceridemia was statin-fibrate combination (55.1%) and fibrates (35.4%), respectively. Sixty-three percent doctors preferred to prescribe statins in patients with moderately high LDL-C and normal triglycerides, without CHD or CHD risk equivalents. Around 28% of doctors preferred not to use pharmacotherapy for managing isolated low HDL. Of the participants, 73% used fibrates in ?20% of their dyslipidemic patients, with fenofibrate being the most preferred (90.5%). Ezetimibe was mainly used in patients with uncontrolled LDL-C despite statin therapy (52.4% respondents). Most preferred approaches to manage statin intolerance included reducing statin dose (39%) and stopping and restarting statins at a lower dose (34.5%). Fifty-two percent of doctors chose not to alter pre-existing therapy in patients who had LDL-C levels at goal but elevated non-HDL-C levels.

Conclusion

This is the first survey in India that provides useful insights into Indian physicians' self-reported perspectives on managing dyslipidemia in routine clinical practice. Despite concordance with the currently available guidelines in certain aspects, there is incongruence in managing specific dyslipidemia problems. Further continuing medical education and the development of evidence-based, India-specific lipid guidelines can help reduce some of these differences.

SUBMITTER: Wander GS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5496264 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Lipid management in India: a nationwide, cross-sectional physician survey.

Wander Gurpreet S GS Jadhav Uday M UM Chemburkar Amruta A Lopez Meena M Gogtay Jaideep J

Lipids in health and disease 20170703 1

<h4>Background</h4>Current international guidelines on dyslipidemia are not concordant on various aspects of management. Also, there are no uniformly accepted Indian guidelines. We, therefore, performed a physician survey to understand lipid management practices in India.<h4>Methods</h4>An anonymous survey questionnaire was administered to gauge physicians' self-reported behavior regarding lipid management aspects. Results were expressed in terms of percentages based on the number of responses o ...[more]

PMID: 28673294

Similar Datasets

Project description:Physicians often select clinical management strategies not strongly supported by evidence or guidelines. Our objective was to examine the likelihood of selecting, and rationale for pursuing, clinical management strategies with more or less guideline support among physicians using clinical vignettes of eight common medical admissions.We conducted a cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes of attending physicians and housestaff at one internal medicine program in New York City. Each clinical vignette included a brief clinical scenario and a varying number of clinical management strategies: diagnostic tests, consultations, and treatments, some of which had strong evidence or guideline support (Level 1 strategies) while others had limited evidence or guideline support (Level 3 strategies). Likelihood of selecting a given management strategy was assessed using Likert scales and multiple response options were used to indicate rationale(s) for selections.Our sample included 79 physicians; 68 (86%) were younger than 40 years of age, 34 (43%) were female. There were 31 attending physicians (39%) and 48 housestaff (61%) and 39 (49%) had or planned to have primarily primary care internal medicine clinical responsibilities. Overall, physicians were more likely to select Level 1 strategies "always" or "most of the time" when compared with Level 3 strategies (82% vs. 43%; p?<?0.001), with wide variation across the eight medical admissions. There were no differences between attending and housestaff physician likelihood of selecting Level 3 strategies (47% vs. 45%, p?=?0.36). Supportive evidence and local practice patterns were the two most common rationales behind selections; supportive evidence was cited as the most common rationale for selecting Level 1 when compared with Level 3 strategies (63% versus 30%; p?<?0.001), whereas ruling out other severe conditions was cited most often for Level 3 strategies.For eight common medical admissions, physicians selected more than 80% of management strategies with strong evidence or guideline support, but also selected more than 40% of strategies for which there was limited evidence or guideline support. The promotion of evidence-based care, including the avoidance of care that is not strongly supported by evidence or guidelines, may require better evidence dissemination and educational outreach to physicians.

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to systematically and simultaneously examine the association of intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors with physician burnout and job dissatisfaction.DesignA nationally representative survey was fielded from September to November 2017.SettingHospitals and clinics throughout Taiwan.ParticipantsA total of 6674 physicians.Main exposure measureThe main exposure measures were intrinsic motivators (sense of calling, personally rewarding hours per day and meaningful, long-term relationships with patients) and extrinsic motivators (income, work hours, autonomy, and pay-for-performance (P4P) and bundled payment initiatives).Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measures were physician burnout and job dissatisfaction.ResultsA total of 1152 physicians returned the surveys. More sense of calling and personally rewarding hours per day were associated with less physician burnout (OR 0.16, 95%?CI 0.10 to 0.26 and OR 0.25, 95%?CI 0.13 to 0.47, respectively) and job dissatisfaction (OR 0.35, 95%?CI 0.21 to 0.57 and OR 0.46, 95%?CI 0.26 to 0.83, respectively). Longer work hours were associated with more physician burnout (OR 2.67, 95%?CI 1.54 to 4.63) and job dissatisfaction (OR 1.71, 95%?CI 1.05 to 2.79). Not receiving P4P bonuses from their organisations was associated with more physician burnout (OR 1.56, 95%?CI 1.02 to 2.38). Not sharing the losses from caring for patients included in the bundled payment system was associated with less physician burnout (OR 0.59, 95%?CI 0.36 to 0.97).ConclusionsFostering a healthcare work environment that supports intrinsic motivation and improves work hours may reduce physician burnout and job dissatisfaction. Rewarding physicians fairly and equitably may prevent them from feeling burned out. Value-based care delivery and payment model innovations, such as bundled payments, may encourage healthcare professionals to coordinate care through the standardisation of care to decrease burnout.

Project description:BackgroundDigital technologies are shaping medicine and public health.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the attitudes toward and the use of digital technologies for health-related purposes using a nationwide survey.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional study using a panel sample of internet users selected from the general population living in Germany. Responses to a survey with 28 items were collected using computer-assisted telephone interviews conducted in October 2020. The items were divided into four topics: (1) general attitudes toward digitization, (2) COVID-19 pandemic, (3) physical activity, and (4) perceived digital health (eHealth) literacy measured with the eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS; sum score of 8=lowest to 40=highest perceived eHealth literacy). The data were analyzed in IBM-SPSS24 using relative frequencies. Three univariate multiple regression analyses (linear or binary logistic) were performed to investigate the associations among the sociodemographic factors (age, gender, education, and household income) and digital technology use.ResultsThe participants included 1014 internet users (n=528, 52.07% women) aged 14 to 93 years (mean 54, SD 17). Among all participants, 66.47% (674/1014) completed up to tertiary (primary and secondary) education and 45.07% (457/1017) reported a household income of up to 3500 Euro/month (1 Euro=US $1.18). Over half (579/1014, 57.10%) reported having used digital technologies for health-related purposes. The majority (898/1014, 88.56%) noted that digitization will be important for therapy and health care, in the future. Only 25.64% (260/1014) reported interest in smartphone apps for health promotion/prevention and 42.70% (433/1014) downloaded the COVID-19 contact-tracing app. Although 52.47% (532/1014) reported that they come across inaccurate digital information on the COVID-19 pandemic, 78.01% (791/1014) were confident in their ability to recognize such inaccurate information. Among those who use digital technologies for moderate physical activity (n=220), 187 (85.0%) found such technologies easy to use and 140 (63.6%) reported using them regularly (at least once a week). Although the perceived eHealth literacy was high (eHEALS mean score 31 points, SD 6), less than half (43.10%, 400/928) were confident in using digital information for health decisions. The use of digital technologies for health was associated with higher household income (odds ratio [OR] 1.28, 95% CI 1.11-1.47). The use of digital technologies for physical activity was associated with younger age (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.94-0.96) and more education (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.46). A higher perceived eHealth literacy score was associated with younger age (β=-.22, P<.001), higher household income (β=.21, P<.001), and more education (β=.14, P<.001).ConclusionsInternet users in Germany expect that digitization will affect preventive and therapeutic health care in the future. The facilitators and barriers associated with the use of digital technologies for health warrant further research. A gap exists between high confidence in the perceived ability to evaluate digital information and low trust in internet-based information on the COVID-19 pandemic and health decisions.

Dataset Information

Lipid management in India: a nationwide, cross-sectional physician survey.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Lipid management in India: a nationwide, cross-sectional physician survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets