Search

Objective: Clinical inertia, the absence of treatment initiation or intensification for patients not achieving evidence-based therapeutic goals, is a primary contributor to poor clinical outcomes. Effectively combating clinical inertia requires coordinated action on the part of multiple representatives including patients, clinicians, health systems, and the pharmaceutical industry. Despite intervention attempts by these representatives, barriers to overcoming clinical inertia in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor control remain., Methods: We conducted a narrative literature review to identify individual-level and multifactorial interventions that have been successful in addressing clinical inertia., Results: Effective interventions included dynamic forms of patient and clinician education, monitoring of real-time patient data to facilitate shared decision-making, or a combination of these approaches. Based on findings, we describe three possible multi-level approaches to counter clinical inertia - a collaborative approach to clinician training, use of a population health manager, and use of electronic monitoring and reminder devices., Conclusion: To reduce clinical inertia and achieve optimal CVD risk factor control, interventions should consider the role of multiple representatives, be feasible for implementation in healthcare systems, and be flexible for an individual patient's adherence needs., Practice Implications: Representatives (e.g., patients, clinicians, health systems, and the pharmaceutical industry) could consider approaches to identify and monitor non-adherence to address clinical inertia., Competing Interests: Competing interests Dr. Zullig reports research grant support from the PhRMA Foundation, and Proteus Digital Health and consulting from Novartis and Pfizer. Dr. Lewinski reports research support from PhRMA Foundation and Otsuka. Drs. Goldstein and Jazowski report no conflicts of interest. Dr. Bosworth reports research grants from Sanofi, PhRMA Foundation, Proteus Digital Health, Otsuka, Novo Nordisk, Improved Patient Outcomes, Boehringer Ingelheim as well as consulting from Otsuka, Abbott, Walmart, Better therapeutics, VIDYA, and Sanofi., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objectives: To explore gender-based differences in experiences with a telehealth-delivered intervention for reduction of cardiovascular risk., Methods: We conducted 23 semi-structured qualitative interviews by telephone with 11 women and 12 men who received a 12-month, pharmacist-delivered, telephone-based medication and behavioral management intervention. We used content analysis to identify themes., Results: We identified three common themes for both men and women: ease and convenience of phone support, preference for proactive outreach, and need for trust building in the context of telehealth. While both genders appreciated the social support from the intervention pharmacist, women voiced appreciation for accountability whereas men generally spoke about encouragement., Conclusions: Rapport building may differ between telehealth and in-person healthcare visits; our work highlights how men and women's experiences can differ with telehealth care and which can inform the development of future, purposeful rapport building activities to strengthen the clinician-patient interaction., Practice Implications: Clinicians should seek opportunities to provide frequent and routine support for patients with chronic disease. Telehealth interventions may benefit from gender-specific tailoring of social support., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)