Search

Background and Objectives: Previous research identified numerous barriers to general practitioner (GP) use of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk guidelines, and it is unclear whether these issues have been resolved. This study explored recent GP experiences., Method: Interviews with 18 GPs in an Australian state with relatively few COVID-19 cases in 2021 were transcribed and coded using a framework analysis approach, with data mapped to five previously identified CVD risk assessment strategies: absolute risk focused, absolute risk adjusted, clinical judgement, passive disregard and active disregard., Results: GPs used various CVD risk calculators to inform clinical decision making, but there were concerns about accuracy, the role of extra risk factors and less 'personalised' assessment. GPs addressed these concerns by requesting additional tests, subjectively adjusting the CVD risk assessment to account for extra risk factors and focusing on individual risk factors., Discussion: Many barriers to CVD risk assessment guidelines remain. GP support is needed to implement revised guidelines.

Objectives: Low health literacy is associated with worse health outcomes, including for cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, general practitioners (GPs) have limited support to identify and address patient health literacy needs in CVD prevention consultations. This study explored GPs' experiences of patient health literacy needs during CVD risk assessment and management consultations., Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 18 GPs in Tasmania, Australia in 2021. A Framework Analysis approach was used to code transcripts to a thematic framework., Results: GPs perceptions on patient health literacy informed three themes: 1. Methods of estimating health literacy; 2. GPs' perceptions about the impact of health literacy on CVD prevention including risk factor knowledge and behaviours; and 3. Strategies for communicating with patients experiencing health literacy challenges. The findings show that while no formal tools were used to assess health literacy in this sample, perceived health literacy can change GPs' communication and prevention strategies., Conclusion: The findings raise concerns about the equity of choices made available to patients, based on subjective perceptions of their health literacy level., Practice Implication: GPs could be better supported to assess and address patient health literacy needs in CVD prevention consultations., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Carissa Bonner reports financial support was provided by National Health and Medical Research Council. Carissa Bonner reports financial support was provided by Heart Foundation. Mark R. Nelson reports a relationship with Novartis Lipid Advisory Board that includes: board membership. CB and MRN are involved in the current CVD prevention guideline revision released in July 2023., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend medication based on the probability of a heart attack/stroke in the next 5-10 years. However, heuristics and biases make risk communication challenging for doctors. This study explored how patients interpret personalised CVD risk results presented in varying formats and timeframes., Methods: GPs recruited 25 patients with CVD risk factors and varying medication history. Participants were asked to 'think aloud' while using two CVD risk calculators that present probabilistic risk in different ways, within a semi-structured interview. Transcribed audio-recordings were coded using Framework Analysis., Results: Key themes were: 1) numbers lack meaning without a reference point; 2) risk results need to be both credible and novel; 3) selective attention to intervention effects. Risk categories (low/moderate/high) provided meaningful context, but short-term risk results were not credible if they didn't match expectations. Colour-coded icon arrays showing the effect of age and interventions were seen as novel and motivating. Those on medication focused on benefits, while others focused on harms., Conclusion: CVD risk formats need to be tailored to patient expectations and experiences in order to counteract heuristics and biases., Practice Implications: Doctors need access to multiple CVD risk formats to communicate effectively about CVD prevention., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Primary cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in older people is challenging as they are a diverse group with varying needs, frequent presence of comorbidities, and are more susceptible to treatment harms. Moreover the potential benefits and harms of preventive medication for older people are uncertain. We explored GPs' decision making about primary CVD prevention in patients aged 75 years and older., Method: 25 GPs participated in semi-structured interviews in New South Wales, Australia. Transcribed audio-recordings were thematically coded and Framework Analysis was used., Results: Analysis identified factors that are likely to contribute to variation in the management of CVD risk in older people. Some GPs based CVD prevention on guidelines regardless of patient age. Others tailored management based on factors such as perceptions of prevention in older age, knowledge of limited evidence, comorbidities, polypharmacy, frailty, and life expectancy. GPs were more confident about: 1) medication and lifestyle change for fit/healthy older patients, and 2) stopping or avoiding medication for frail/nursing home patients. Decision making for older patients outside of these categories was less clear., Conclusion: Older patients receive different care depending on their GP's perceptions of ageing and CVD prevention, and their knowledge of available evidence. GPs consider CVD prevention for older patients challenging and would welcome more guidance in this area., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objective: Although current guidelines around the world recommend using absolute risk (AR) thresholds to decide whether cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk should be managed with lifestyle or medication, the use of AR in clinical practice is limited. The aim of this study was to explore the factors that influence general practitioner (GP) and patient decision making about CVD risk management, including the role of risk perception., Methods: Qualitative descriptive study involving semi-structured interviews with 25 GPs and 38 patients in Australia in 2011-2012. Transcribed audio-recordings were thematically coded and a Framework Analysis method was used., Results: GPs rarely mentioned AR thresholds but were influenced by their subjective perception of the patient's risk and motivation, and their own attitudes toward prevention, including concerns about medication side effects and the efficacy of lifestyle change. Patients were influenced by individual risk factors, their own motivation to change lifestyle, and attitudes toward medication: initially negative, but this improved if medication was more effective than lifestyle. High perceived risk led to medication being recommended by GPs and accepted by patients, but this was not necessarily based on AR. Patient perceptions of high risk also increased motivation to change lifestyle, particularly if they were resistant to the idea of taking medication., Conclusions: Perceived risk, motivation, and attitudes appeared to be more important than AR thresholds in this study. CVD risk management guidelines could be more useful if they include strategies to help GPs consider patients' risk perception, motivation, and attitudes as well as evidence-based recommendations., (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.)

Recruiting general practitioners (GPs) for participation in primary care research is vitally important, but it can be very difficult for researchers to engage time-poor GPs. This paper describes six different strategies used by a research team recruiting Australian GPs for three qualitative interview studies and one experimental study, and reports the response rates and costs incurred. Strategies included: (1) mailed invitations via Divisions of General Practice; (2) electronic newsletters; (3) combining mailed invitations and newsletter; (4) in-person recruitment at GP conferences; (5) conference satchel inserts; and (6) combining in-person recruitment and satchel inserts. Response rates ranged from 0 (newsletter) to 30% (in-person recruitment). Recruitment costs perparticipant ranged from A$83 (in-person recruitment) to A$232 (satchel inserts). Mailed invitations can be viable for qualitative studies, especially when free/low-cost mailing lists are used, if the response rate is less important. In-person recruitment at GP conferences can be effective for short quantitative studies, where a higher response rate is important. Newsletters and conference satchel inserts were expensive and ineffective.

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines encourage assessment of absolute CVD risk - the probability of a CVD event within a fixed time period, based on the most predictive risk factors. However, few General Practitioners (GPs) use absolute CVD risk consistently, and communication difficulties have been identified as a barrier to changing practice. This study aimed to explore GPs' descriptions of their CVD risk communication strategies, including the role of absolute risk., Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 25 GPs in New South Wales, Australia. Transcribed audio-recordings were thematically coded, using the Framework Analysis method to ensure rigour., Results: GPs used absolute CVD risk within three different communication strategies: 'positive', 'scare tactic', and 'indirect'. A 'positive' strategy, which aimed to reassure and motivate, was used for patients with low risk, determination to change lifestyle, and some concern about CVD risk. Absolute risk was used to show how they could reduce risk. A 'scare tactic' strategy was used for patients with high risk, lack of motivation, and a dismissive attitude. Absolute risk was used to 'scare' them into taking action. An 'indirect' strategy, where CVD risk was not the main focus, was used for patients with low risk but some lifestyle risk factors, high anxiety, high resistance to change, or difficulty understanding probabilities. Non-quantitative absolute risk formats were found to be helpful in these situations., Conclusions: This study demonstrated how GPs use three different communication strategies to address the issue of CVD risk, depending on their perception of patient risk, motivation and anxiety. Absolute risk played a different role within each strategy. Providing GPs with alternative ways of explaining absolute risk, in order to achieve different communication aims, may improve their use of absolute CVD risk assessment in practice.

Objectives: To identify factors that influence the extent to which general practitioners use absolute risk (AR) assessment in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment., Design, Setting and Participants: Semi-structured interviews with 25 currently practising GPs from eight Divisions of General Practice in New South Wales, Australia, between October 2011 and May 2012. Data were analysed using framework analysis., Results: The study identified five strategies that GPs use with patients in different situations, defined in terms of the extent to which AR was used and the reasons given for this: the AR-focused strategy, used when AR assessment was considered useful for the patient; the AR-adjusted strategy, used to account for additional risk factors such as family history; the clinical judgement strategy, used when GPs considered that their judgement took multiple risk factors into account as effectively as AR; the passive disregard strategy, used when GPs lacked sufficient time, access or experience to use AR; and the active disregard strategy, used when AR was considered to be inappropriate for the patient. The strategies were linked with different opportunity, capability and motivation barriers to the use of AR., Conclusions: This study provides an in-depth insight into the factors that influence GPs' use of AR in CVD risk assessment. The results suggest that GPs use a range of strategies in different situations, so different approaches may be required to improve the use of AR guidelines in practice.

Background: Ethnic minority groups in Vietnam experience economic, social and health inequalities. There are significant disparities in health service utilisation, and cultural, interpersonal and communication barriers impact on quality of care. Eighty per cent of the population of Dien Bien Province belongs to an ethnic minority group, and poor communication between health professionals and ethnic minority women in the maternal health context is a concern for health officials and community leaders. This study explores how ethnic minority women experience communication with primary care health professionals in the maternal and child health setting, with an overall aim to develop strategies to improve health professionals' communication with ethnic minority communities. Methods: We used a qualitative focused ethnographic approach and conducted focus group discussions with 37 Thai and Hmong ethnic minority women (currently pregnant or mothers of children under five) in Dien Bien Province. We conducted a thematic analysis. Results: Ethnic minority women generally reported that health professionals delivered health information in a didactic, one-way style, and there was a reliance on written information (Maternal and Child Health handbook) in place of interpersonal communication. The health information they receive (both verbal and written) was often non-specific, and not context-adjusted for their personal circumstances. Women were therefore required to take a more active role in interpersonal interactions in order to meet their own specific information needs, but they are then faced with other challenges including language and gender differences with health professionals, time constraints, and a reluctance to ask questions. These factors resulted in women interpreting health information in diverse ways, which in turn appeared to impact their health behaviours. Conclusions: Fostering two-way communication and patient-centred attitudes among health professionals could help to improve their communication with ethnic minority women. Communication training for health professionals could be included along with the nationwide implementation of written information to improve communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To explore how decisions are made in real-life general practice consultations with older patients (65+ years), and examine how general practitioners (GPs) communicate risk and benefit information and evidence, and integrate patient preferences.Methods: Secondary analysis of 20 video-recorded consultations with older patients in Australian primary healthcare settings. Consultations were analysed qualitatively using the Framework method and quantitatively using the Observer OPTION5 scale and the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool.Results: Overall, Observer OPTION5 and ACEPP scores were low, with mean total scores of 11.3 (out of 100) and 10.4 (out of 40) respectively. Together with qualitative findings, these results suggest that shared decision-making did not occur, and that healthcare options (including anticipated benefits and risks), evidence and patient preferences were rarely discussed in our sample of consultations with older people. GPs often unilaterally made treatment decisions (usually pharmacotherapy) while patients reverted to a passive decision-making role.Conclusion: We observed a lack of shared decision-making in our primary care study, with little engagement of older patients in decisions about their health.Practice Implications: Training and support tools may be needed to enhance the capacity and self-efficacy of providers and older patients to share healthcare decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]