Search

Aim: We investigated whether the risk estimates of General Practitioners (GPs) and their treatment decisions mutually influence each other and whether factors not related to the patient's risk, such as the gender and length in clinical practice, interact., Background: The quantitative assessment of the absolute risk of developing coronary heart disease (CHD) and the decision to start treatment with lipid-lowering drugs are crucial tasks in the primary prevention of CHD., Methods: Nine clinical vignettes, four rated high-risk and five rated low-risk according to the Framingham equation, were mailed to three groups of 90 randomly selected GPs in Stockholm. One group (R) was asked to estimate the risk of CHD within 10 years on a visual analogue scale. A second group (R1D) was asked to estimate the risk and to specify whether they would recommend a pharmacological lipid-lowering treatment. A third group (D) only to indicate whether they would recommend treatment., Results: Response rate ranged from 42.2% to 45.6%. The median risk estimates were higher in the R group than in the R1D group (difference not statistically significant). R1D group showed higher proportions of correct decisions to start treatment compared with the R group (86.2% versus 77.5%, P50.19). More correct decisions were made by female doctors (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19-2.61, P50.004) and by less experienced doctors (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99, P50.016)., Conclusions: The task of making CHD risk estimates and the task of making decisions whether to start lipid-lowering treatment do not seem to influence each other. The gender of physicians and the length of clinical experience seem to affect treatment decisions. Female GPs and less experienced GPs are more likely to make correct decisions. However, the relatively low response rate to the questionnaires may limit the generalizability of these results.

In order to compare attitudes and management concerning hyperlipidaemia and risk factors for coronary heart disease among doctors in northern and in southern Europe, a questionnaire study was undertaken among doctors in primary health care and departments of internal medicine in Sicily and Stockholm. The regions differed in culture and health-care structure. Guidelines were similar, but screening of healthy individuals was recommended in Sicily, and not in Sweden. One hundred and fifty-three general practitioners in Sicily and 120 in Stockholm, 211 internists in Sicily and 83 in Stockholm participated. Main outcome measures were management policies for investigation and treatment and also attitudes. Routine lipid checks at first visits were done by few doctors in Stockholm but by a majority in Sicily (p < 0.001); in the presence of general cardiovascular risk factors (other than heredity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and hypertension), routine checks were carried out more often by both general practitioners (p < 0.001) and internists (p < 0.005) in Stockholm. Drug treatment was initiated at lower cholesterol levels for secondary and primary intervention, cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular risk factors and hereditary hyperlipidaemia by both groups in Sicily (p < 0.001), as was dietary treatment. Secondary prevention was considered important by all groups, but primary prevention only by Sicilian doctors. We concluded that there were differences in views and management practice between doctors in Sicily and in Stockholm on the investigation and treatment of patients with hyperlipidaemia. Doctors tested lipids at first visits in Sicily but not in Stockholm. Treatment was initiated at lower levels of cholesterol in Sicily.