11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      General practitioners’ justifications for therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular prevention: an empirically grounded typology

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To construct a typology of general practitioners’ (GPs) responses regarding their justification of therapeutic inertia in cardiovascular primary prevention for high-risk patients with hypertension.

          Design

          Empirically grounded construction of typology. Types were defined by attributes derived from the qualitative analysis of GPs’ reported reasons for inaction.

          Participants

          256 GPs randomised in the intervention group of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

          Setting

          GPs members of 23 French Regional Colleges of Teachers in General Practice, included in the EffectS of a multifaceted intervention on CArdiovascular risk factors in high-risk hyPErtensive patients (ESCAPE) trial.

          Data collection and analysis

          The database consisted of 2638 written responses given by the GPs to an open-ended question asking for the reasons why drug treatment was not changed as suggested by the national guidelines. All answers were coded using constant comparison analysis. A matrix analysis of codes per GP allowed the construction of a response typology, where types were defined by codes as attributes. Initial coding and definition of types were performed independently by two teams.

          Results

          Initial coding resulted in a list of 69 codes in the final codebook, representing 4764 coded references in the question responses. A typology including seven types was constructed. 100 GPs were allocated to one and only one of these types, while 25 GPs did not provide enough data to allow classification. Types (numbers of GPs allocated) were: ‘optimists’ (28), ‘negotiators’ (20), ‘checkers’ (15), ‘contextualisers’ (13), ‘cautious’ (11), ‘rounders’ (8) and ‘scientists’ (5). For the 36 GPs that provided 50 or more coded references, analysis of the code evolution over time and across patients showed a consistent belonging to the initial type for any given GP.

          Conclusion

          This typology could provide GPs with some insight into their general ways of considering changes in the treatment/management of cardiovascular risk factors and guide design of specific physician-centred interventions to reduce inappropriate inaction.

          Trial registration number

          NCT00348855.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and microvascular events in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

          Objective To determine all cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular events related to intensive glucose lowering treatment in people with type 2 diabetes. Design Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Study selection Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of intensive glucose lowering treatment on cardiovascular events and microvascular complications in adults (≥18 years) with type 2 diabetes. Data extraction Primary end points were all cause mortality and death from cardiovascular causes. Secondary end points were severe hypoglycaemia and macrovascular and microvascular events. Synthesis of results Results are reported as risk ratios with 99% confidence intervals. Statistical heterogeneity between trials was assessed with χ², τ², and I2 statistics. A fixed effect model was used to assess the effect on the outcomes of intensive glucose lowering versus standard treatment. The quality of clinical trials was assessed by the Jadad score. Results 13 studies were included. Of 34 533 patients, 18 315 received intensive glucose lowering treatment and 16 218 standard treatment. Intensive treatment did not significantly affect all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.04, 99% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.19) or cardiovascular death (1.11, 0.86 to 1.43). Intensive therapy was, however, associated with reductions in the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.85, 0.74 to 0.96, P 3), intensive treatment was not associated with any significant risk of reductions but resulted in a 47% increase in risk of congestive heart failure (P<0.001). Conclusions The overall results of this meta-analysis show limited benefits of intensive glucose lowering treatment on all cause mortality and deaths from cardiovascular causes. We cannot exclude a 9% reduction or a 19% increase in all cause mortality and a 14% reduction or a 43% increase in cardiovascular death. The benefit:risk ratio of intensive glucose lowering treatment in the prevention of macrovascular and microvascular events remains uncertain. The harm associated with severe hypoglycaemia might counterbalance the potential benefit of intensive glucose lowering treatment. More double blind randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the best therapeutic approach in people with type 2 diabetes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Worldwide prevalence of hypertension: a systematic review.

            To examine the prevalence and the level of awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in different world regions. A literature search of the MEDLINE database, using the Medical Subject Headings prevalence, hypertension, blood pressure and cross-sectional studies, was conducted. Published studies, which reported the prevalence of hypertension and were conducted in representative population samples, were included in the review. The search was restricted to studies published from January 1980 through July 2003. All data were extracted independently by two investigators using a standardized protocol and data collection form. The reported prevalence of hypertension varied around the world, with the lowest prevalence in rural India (3.4% in men and 6.8% in women) and the highest prevalence in Poland (68.9% in men and 72.5% in women). Awareness of hypertension was reported for 46% of the studies and varied from 25.2% in Korea to 75% in Barbados; treatment varied from 10.7% in Mexico to 66% in Barbados and control (blood pressure < 140/90 mmHg while on antihypertensive medication) varied from 5.4% in Korea to 58% in Barbados. Hypertension is an important public health challenge in both economically developing and developed countries. Significant numbers of individuals with hypertension are unaware of their condition and, among those with diagnosed hypertension, treatment is frequently inadequate. Measures are required at a population level to prevent the development of hypertension and to improve awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in the community.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of atherosclerotic events in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial.

              Previous trials have investigated the effects of low-dose aspirin on primary prevention of cardiovascular events, but not in patients with type 2 diabetes. To examine the efficacy of low-dose aspirin for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic events in patients with type 2 diabetes. Multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded, end-point trial conducted from December 2002 through April 2008 at 163 institutions throughout Japan, which enrolled 2539 patients with type 2 diabetes without a history of atherosclerotic disease and had a median follow-up of 4.37 years. Patients were assigned to the low-dose aspirin group (81 or 100 mg per day) or the nonaspirin group. Primary end points were atherosclerotic events, including fatal or nonfatal ischemic heart disease, fatal or nonfatal stroke, and peripheral arterial disease. Secondary end points included each primary end point and combinations of primary end points as well as death from any cause. A total of 154 atherosclerotic events occurred: 68 in the aspirin group (13.6 per 1000 person-years) and 86 in the nonaspirin group (17.0 per 1000 person-years) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.10; log-rank test, P = .16). The combined end point of fatal coronary events and fatal cerebrovascular events occurred in 1 patient (stroke) in the aspirin group and 10 patients (5 fatal myocardial infarctions and 5 fatal strokes) in the nonaspirin group (HR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.01-0.79; P = .0037). A total of 34 patients in the aspirin group and 38 patients in the nonaspirin group died from any cause (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.57-1.14; log-rank test, P = .67). The composite of hemorrhagic stroke and significant gastrointestinal bleeding was not significantly different between the aspirin and nonaspirin groups. In this study of patients with type 2 diabetes, low-dose aspirin as primary prevention did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00110448.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2016
                13 May 2016
                : 6
                : 5
                : e010639
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of General Practice, EES Research Team, University of Tours. Faculté de Médecine , Tours, France
                [2 ]Department of General Practice, University of Tours. Faculté de Médecine , Tours, France
                [3 ]Department of General Practice, University of Auvergne. Faculté de Médecine , Clermont-Ferrand, France
                [4 ]Centre Hospitalier de Vendôme , Vendôme, France
                [5 ]Department of General Practice, REMES Research Team, University Paris Diderot. 16 rue Henri Huchard , Paris, France
                [6 ]Department of General Practice, University Paris 13. UFR SMBH , Bobigny, France
                [7 ]Department of Public Health, EES Research team University of Tours. Faculté de Médecine , Tours, France
                [8 ]Department of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care, University of Antwerp. Campus Drie Eiken , Antwerpen, Belgium
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Jean-Pierre Lebeau; jean-pierre.lebeau@ 123456univ-tours.fr
                Article
                bmjopen-2015-010639
                10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010639
                4874143
                27178974
                39d51bef-3f4a-452f-879e-88e701dceabb
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                History
                : 25 November 2015
                : 9 March 2016
                : 24 March 2016
                Categories
                Qualitative Research
                Research
                1506
                1725
                1694
                1696

                Medicine
                primary care,qualitative research
                Medicine
                primary care, qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article