Dataset Information

The factors influencing clinician use of hypertension guidelines in different resource settings: a qualitative study investigating clinicians' perspectives and experiences.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hypertension accounts for the greatest burden of disease worldwide, yet hypertension awareness and control rates are suboptimal, especially within low- and middle-income countries. Guidelines can enable consistency of care and improve health outcomes. A small body of studies investigating clinicians' perceptions and implementation of hypertension guidelines exists, mostly focussed on higher income settings. This study aims to explore how hypertension guidelines are used by clinicians across different resource settings, and the factors influencing their use.

Methods

A qualitative approach was employed using convenience sampling and in-depth semi-structured interviews. Seventeen medical doctors were interviewed over video or telephone call from March to August 2020. Two clinicians worked in low-income countries, ten in middle-income countries, and five in high-income countries. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded inductively. Reflexive thematic analysis was used.

Results

Themes were generated at three levels at which clinicians perceived influencing factors to be operating: healthcare worker, healthcare worker interactions with patients, and the wider health system. Within each level, influencing factors were described as barriers to and facilitators of guideline use. Variation in factors occurred across income settings. At the healthcare worker level, usability of guidelines, trust in guidelines, attitudes and views about guidelines' purpose, and relevance to patient populations were identified as themes. Influencing factors at the health system level were accessibility of equipment and medications, workforce, and access to healthcare settings. Influences at the patient level were clinician perceived patient motivation and health literacy, and access to, and cost of treatment, although these represented doctors' perceptions rather than patient perceived factors.

Conclusions

This study adds a high level global view to previous studies investigating clinician perspectives on hypertension guideline use. Guidelines should be evidence-based, regularly updated and attention should be given to increasing applicability to LMICs and a range of healthcare professionals.

SUBMITTER: Kataria Golestaneh A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8336017 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceLittle is known about how US clinicians have responded to resource limitation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.ObjectiveTo describe the perspectives and experiences of clinicians involved in institutional planning for resource limitation and/or patient care during the pandemic.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used inductive thematic analysis of semistructured interviews conducted in April and May 2020 with a national group of clinicians (eg, intensivists, nephrologists, nurses) involved in institutional planning and/or clinical care during the COVID-19 pandemic across the United States.Main outcomes and measuresEmergent themes describing clinicians' experience providing care in settings of resource limitation.ResultsThe 61 participants (mean [SD] age, 46 [11] years; 38 [63%] women) included in this study were practicing in 15 US states and were more heavily sampled from areas with the highest rates of COVID-19 infection at the time of interviews (ie, Seattle, New York City, New Orleans). Most participants were White individuals (39 [65%]), were attending physicians (45 [75%]), and were practicing in large academic centers (≥300 beds, 51 [85%]; academic centers, 46 [77%]). Three overlapping and interrelated themes emerged from qualitative analysis, as follows: (1) planning for crisis capacity, (2) adapting to resource limitation, and (3) multiple unprecedented barriers to care delivery. Clinician leaders worked within their institutions to plan a systematic approach for fair allocation of limited resources in crisis settings so that frontline clinicians would not have to make rationing decisions at the bedside. However, even before a declaration of crisis capacity, clinicians encountered varied and sometimes unanticipated forms of resource limitation that could compromise care, require that they make difficult allocation decisions, and contribute to moral distress. Furthermore, unprecedented challenges to caring for patients during the pandemic, including the need to limit in-person interactions, the rapid pace of change, and the dearth of scientific evidence, added to the challenges of caring for patients and communicating with families.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this qualitative study highlighted the complexity of providing high-quality care for patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Expanding the scope of institutional planning to address resource limitation challenges that can arise long before declarations of crisis capacity may help to support frontline clinicians, promote equity, and optimize care as the pandemic evolves.

Project description:BackgroundAdmissions to intensive treatment (i.e., inpatient [IP] and/or day patient [DP]) for individuals with severe anorexia nervosa (AN) are common. Growing literature indicates potential risks and benefits of each intensive treatment approach; however, existing research has focused on patient and carer perspectives of these treatments. Also, there is scant empirical evidence available for guiding the parameters of intensive treatments for AN. We therefore explored clinicians' perspectives and experience of supporting adults with severe AN in intensive settings.MethodsWe conducted twenty one semi-structured interviews with clinicians who deliver intensive treatments (i.e., IP and/or DP) for individuals with severe AN across four specialist Eating Disorder Services in the United Kingdom between May 2020 and June 2021. We asked clinicians about their views and experiences of supporting individuals with severe AN in intensive treatment settings and the challenges and opportunities associated with IP and DP treatment. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis supported by NVivo software.ResultsFive broad and interrelated themes were identified: (1) Intensive Support; (2) The Severity of Patients' Illnesses; (3) Hope and Recovery; (4) Which Treatment When; (5) Limited Resources; and (6) Carer Burden. We identified various similarities between the two intensive treatment approaches, including the value of intensive and multidisciplinary support and carer involvement, and the challenge of managing complex and unique needs in resource-limited intensive settings. We also found differences in the relationship of treatment to patients' home environments, the necessity of patient motivation, and the management of risk.ConclusionsBoth intensive treatment settings are valued by clinicians; however, there are unique challenges and opportunities for supporting individuals with severe AN within each. Our findings suggest DP treatment may be used as an alternative to IP treatment for individuals with severe AN. However, clear questions remain over which intensive treatment setting is best suited to which patient when and should be the focus of future research.

Project description:IntroductionIn 2007, the Cameroon Baptist Convention Health Services (CBCHS) initiated an assisted partner notification services (aPNS) public health programme to increase HIV case identification and reduce HIV incidence in the most affected regions of Cameroon. We describe large-scale implementation of aPNS and overall programmatic achievements in a resource-limited setting through 2015.MethodsCBCHS trained health advisors (HAs) from 16 CBCHS facilities and 22 non-CBCHS facilities to integrate aPNS into their existing jobs in five of the ten Cameroon regions. HAs recorded basic demographic, clinical and risk factor information from consenting index persons (IPs) and similar information about their sexual partners'/contact persons (CPs) on interview records and aPNS registers. These data were entered into an Epi-Info database. HAs provided pre-test counselling to CPs and offered them HIV testing in their home or other location. HAs educated IPs and CPs on HIV prevention and risk reduction, and referred IPs and HIV positive CPs to HIV care and treatment centres. Starting in 2014, HAs re-interviewed IPs 30 days after their initial aPNS interview to ascertain instances of social harms following partner notification. Continuous predictor and outcome variables were summarized using median and interquartile range, while categorical variables were summarized using percentages from 2007 to 2015.ResultsA total of 18,730 IPs (71% women) received aPNS over nine years. IPs identified 21,057 CPs (67% men) (mean CP/IP 1.12), of whom 12,867 (61.1%) were notified of their exposure to HIV. A total of 9202 (71.5% of notified CPs) tested for HIV, 4764 (51.8%) of whom tested HIV positive (number of IPs needed to interview = 3.9); 3112 (65.3%) HIV-positive partners were referred to HIV care and treatment centres. Of the 976 IPs receiving aPNS in 2014 to 2015, for whom follow-up data were available, 11 (1.1%) reported physical intimate partner violence from CPs. Thus, 44.3% of 1224 CPs were notified through provider referral. Of the 784 CPs who tested for HIV, 157 were newly diagnosed and the overall HIV prevalence was 41.6% (326/784).ConclusionsaPNS is feasible, can be brought to scale, yields a high level of case identification, and is infrequently associated with social harms and intimate partner violence.