Cargando…
General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study
OBJECTIVE: To understand general practitioners’ (GPs) use of individual risk factors (blood pressure and cholesterol levels) versus absolute risk in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management decision-making. DESIGN: Randomised experiment. Absolute risk, systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025465/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24833688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004812 |
_version_ | 1782316765308518400 |
---|---|
author | Jansen, Jesse Bonner, Carissa McKinn, Shannon Irwig, Les Glasziou, Paul Doust, Jenny Teixeira-Pinto, Armando Hayen, Andrew Turner, Robin McCaffery, Kirsten |
author_facet | Jansen, Jesse Bonner, Carissa McKinn, Shannon Irwig, Les Glasziou, Paul Doust, Jenny Teixeira-Pinto, Armando Hayen, Andrew Turner, Robin McCaffery, Kirsten |
author_sort | Jansen, Jesse |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To understand general practitioners’ (GPs) use of individual risk factors (blood pressure and cholesterol levels) versus absolute risk in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management decision-making. DESIGN: Randomised experiment. Absolute risk, systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol ratio (total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (TC/HDL)) and age were systematically varied in hypothetical cases. High absolute risk was defined as 5-year risk of a cardiovascular event >15%, high blood pressure levels varied between SBP 147 and 179 mm Hg and high cholesterol (TC/HDL ratio) between 6.5 and 7.2 mmol/L. SETTING: 4 GP conferences in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 144 Australian GPs. OUTCOMES: GPs indicated whether they would prescribe cholesterol and/or blood pressure lowering medication. Analyses involved logistic regression. RESULTS: For patients with high blood pressure: 93% (95% CI 86% to 96%) of high absolute risk patients and 83% (95% CI 76% to 88%) of lower absolute risk patients were prescribed blood pressure medication. Conversely, 30% (95% CI 25% to 36%) of lower blood pressure patients were prescribed blood pressure medication if absolute risk was high and 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%) if lower. 69% of high cholesterol/high absolute risk patients were prescribed cholesterol medication (95% CI 61% to 77%) versus 34% of high cholesterol/lower absolute risk patients (95% CI 28% to 41%). 36% of patients with lower cholesterol (95% CI 30% to 43%) were prescribed cholesterol medication if absolute risk was high versus 10% if lower (95% CI 8% to 13%). CONCLUSIONS: GPs’ decision-making was more consistent with the management of individual risk factors than an absolute risk approach, especially when prescribing blood pressure medication. The results suggest medical treatment of lower risk patients (5-year risk of CVD event <15%) with mildly elevated blood pressure or cholesterol levels is likely to occur even when an absolute risk assessment is specifically provided. The results indicate a need for improving uptake of absolute risk guidelines and GP understanding of the rationale for using absolute risk. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4025465 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-40254652014-05-21 General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study Jansen, Jesse Bonner, Carissa McKinn, Shannon Irwig, Les Glasziou, Paul Doust, Jenny Teixeira-Pinto, Armando Hayen, Andrew Turner, Robin McCaffery, Kirsten BMJ Open Cardiovascular Medicine OBJECTIVE: To understand general practitioners’ (GPs) use of individual risk factors (blood pressure and cholesterol levels) versus absolute risk in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management decision-making. DESIGN: Randomised experiment. Absolute risk, systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol ratio (total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (TC/HDL)) and age were systematically varied in hypothetical cases. High absolute risk was defined as 5-year risk of a cardiovascular event >15%, high blood pressure levels varied between SBP 147 and 179 mm Hg and high cholesterol (TC/HDL ratio) between 6.5 and 7.2 mmol/L. SETTING: 4 GP conferences in Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 144 Australian GPs. OUTCOMES: GPs indicated whether they would prescribe cholesterol and/or blood pressure lowering medication. Analyses involved logistic regression. RESULTS: For patients with high blood pressure: 93% (95% CI 86% to 96%) of high absolute risk patients and 83% (95% CI 76% to 88%) of lower absolute risk patients were prescribed blood pressure medication. Conversely, 30% (95% CI 25% to 36%) of lower blood pressure patients were prescribed blood pressure medication if absolute risk was high and 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%) if lower. 69% of high cholesterol/high absolute risk patients were prescribed cholesterol medication (95% CI 61% to 77%) versus 34% of high cholesterol/lower absolute risk patients (95% CI 28% to 41%). 36% of patients with lower cholesterol (95% CI 30% to 43%) were prescribed cholesterol medication if absolute risk was high versus 10% if lower (95% CI 8% to 13%). CONCLUSIONS: GPs’ decision-making was more consistent with the management of individual risk factors than an absolute risk approach, especially when prescribing blood pressure medication. The results suggest medical treatment of lower risk patients (5-year risk of CVD event <15%) with mildly elevated blood pressure or cholesterol levels is likely to occur even when an absolute risk assessment is specifically provided. The results indicate a need for improving uptake of absolute risk guidelines and GP understanding of the rationale for using absolute risk. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4025465/ /pubmed/24833688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004812 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) 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/3.0/ |
spellingShingle | Cardiovascular Medicine Jansen, Jesse Bonner, Carissa McKinn, Shannon Irwig, Les Glasziou, Paul Doust, Jenny Teixeira-Pinto, Armando Hayen, Andrew Turner, Robin McCaffery, Kirsten General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study |
title | General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study |
title_full | General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study |
title_fullStr | General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study |
title_full_unstemmed | General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study |
title_short | General practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study |
title_sort | general practitioners’ use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study |
topic | Cardiovascular Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4025465/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24833688 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004812 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jansenjesse generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy AT bonnercarissa generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy AT mckinnshannon generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy AT irwigles generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy AT glaszioupaul generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy AT doustjenny generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy AT teixeirapintoarmando generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy AT hayenandrew generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy AT turnerrobin generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy AT mccafferykirsten generalpractitionersuseofabsoluteriskversusindividualriskfactorsincardiovasculardiseasepreventionanexperimentalstudy |