Views on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease - an interview study with Swedish GPs

Abstract

BackgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) have gradually become more involved in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), both through more frequent prescribing of pharmaceuticals and by giving advice regarding lifestyle factors. Most general practitioners are now faced with decisions about pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical treatment for primary prevention every day. The aim of this study was to explore, structure and describe the views on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice among Swedish GPs.MethodsIndividual interviews were conducted with 21 GPs in southern Sweden. The interview transcripts were analysed using a qualitative approach, inspired by phenomenography.ResultsTwo main categories of description emerged during the analysis. One was the degree of reliance on research data regarding the predictability of real risk and the opportunities for primary prevention of CVD. The other was the allocation of responsibility between the patient and the doctor. The GPs showed different views, from being convinced of an actual and predictable risk for the individual to strongly doubting it; from relying firmly on protection from disease by pharmaceutical treatment to strongly questioning its effectiveness in individual cases; and from reliance on prevention of disease by non-pharmaceutical interventions to a total lack of reliance on such measures.ConclusionsThe GPs' different views, regarding the rationale for and practical management of primary prevention of CVD, can be interpreted as a reflection of the complexity of patient counselling in primary prevention in clinical practice. The findings have implications for development and implementation of standard treatment guidelines, regarding long-time primary preventive treatment.

Clinical Gaze in Risk-Factor Haze: Swedish GPs’ Perceptions of Prescribing Cardiovascular Preventive Drugs

“…With “shared decision making” as an intermediate, this conforms to the model of consultation styles described by Charles et al [16]. Similarly, Silwer et al found GPs to have different views on the allocation of responsibility (between doctors and patients) when decisions on primary cardiovascular prevention were to be made [17]. However, the GPs in our study described situational adjustments to their prescribing behaviour.…”

Pharmacoepidemiology at Nordic School of Public Health NHV: Examples from 1999 to 2014

“…The most commonly dispensed PPI in Norway, esomeprazole, is not commonly used in Sweden nor Denmark. In the Swedish thesis, for several of the cardiovascular drug groups there was a 2-fold difference in sales figures between two neighbouring [7][8][9][10][11][12]. Among other things, the results showed that over the study period, prescribing by general practitioners (gPs) increased both in absolute and relative terms.…”

“…The target population consisted of about 14,000 randomly-selected Swedish residents older than 18 years, of whom 7099 responded to the survey about perceived drugrelated morbidity, care contacts and medication use: 19% reported drug-related morbidity during the 1-month study period [12]. Of the two types of self-reported drug-related morbidity that were examined in depth (adverse drug reactions and subtherapeutic effect of medication therapy), 19% were perceived as preventable [12]. The resulting costs of the two types of drug-related morbidity represented 12.5% of all drug and healthcare costs among respondents whom were reporting either or both of these two drug-related morbidities.…”

A telephone-supported cardiovascular lifestyle programme (CLIP) for lipid reduction and weight loss in general practice patients: a randomised controlled pilot trial

“…Yet general practitioners face barriers in delivering primary prevention strategies due to the complexity of patient counselling in lifestyle behaviour modifications (16) , time constraints (16)(17)(18) and inadequate training in applying behavioural-change and weight-loss counselling (17,18) . Therefore approaches to support general practitioners overcome these obstacles and assist in referral pathways to implement effective CVD risk reduction for their patients are needed.…”