Improving cardiovascular risk management: a randomized, controlled trial on the effect of a decision support tool for patients and physicians

Background There is nonoptimal adherence of general practitioners (GPs) and patients to cardiovascular risk reducing interventions. GPs find it difficult to assimilate multiple risk factors into an accurate assessment of cardiovascular risk. In addition, communicating cardiovascular risk to patients has proved to be difficult. Aims Improving primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in primary care by enhancing patient involvement in the use of a decision support tool. Design Cluster randomized trial. Methods Thirty-four GPs included patients (40-75 years old) without CVD. In an interactive, small group training session lasting 4h, the GPs in the intervention group were trained to use the guidelines on cardiovascular risk and a decision support tool. The control group received educational materials about the guidelines on paper. GPs’ clinical performance and patients’ risk perception and self-reported lifestyles were measured at baseline and after 6 months. Results Thirty-four GPs recorded 490 consultations, 276 in the intervention and 214 in the control group. After 6 months, no significant effect of the intervention on the GPs’ performance or the patients’ risk perception was found. There was only an effect on self-reported lifestyle, in that more men in the intervention group than in the control group increased their physical activity (odds ratio 3.8, 95% confidence interval 1.7–8.7). Conclusion The 4-h interactive, small group training did not guarantee correct application of the decision support tool and as such failed to improve GPs’ performance or correct patients’ risk perception. The positive effect on physical activity justifies further research on patient involvement. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 14: 44-50 © 2007 The European Society of Cardiology

[1]  A. Steptoe,et al.  Behavioural counselling in general practice for the promotion of healthy behaviour among adults at increased risk of coronary heart disease: randomised trial. , 1999, BMJ.

[2]  How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians? , 2001 .

[3]  R. Grol,et al.  Organizing cardiovascular preventive care in general practice: determinants of a successful intervention. , 2002, Preventive medicine.

[4]  Paul Gallimore,et al.  Risk assessment in PFI schemes for primary health care , 2002 .

[5]  Jude Robinson,et al.  Factors involved in deciding to start preventive treatment: qualitative study of clinicians' and lay people's attitudes , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  J. Norrie,et al.  Risk assessment in primary prevention of coronary heart disease: randomised comparison of three scoring methods , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[7]  J. Knottnerus,et al.  Feasibility of a national cholesterol guideline in daily practice. A randomized controlled trial in 20 general practices. , 1999, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[8]  R. Grol,et al.  Which data source in clinical performance assessment? A pilot study comparing self-recording with patient records and observation. , 2004, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[9]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. , 2004, Family practice.

[10]  L. Erhardt,et al.  Acceptance of guideline recommendations and perceived implementation of coronary heart disease prevention among primary care physicians in five European countries: the Reassessing European Attitudes about Cardiovascular Treatment (REACT) survey. , 2002, Family practice.

[11]  T. Fahey,et al.  How accurately do primary health care professionals use cardiovascular risk tables in the management of hypertension? , 1999, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[12]  D. Torgerson,et al.  Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care , 2003, The Lancet.

[14]  M. Bloor,et al.  Communication about risk: the responses of primary care professionals to standardizing the 'language of risk' and communication tools. , 1998, Family practice.

[15]  C P Bradley,et al.  Patients' unvoiced agendas in general practice consultations: qualitative study , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  Karen R. Sepucha,et al.  Extending decision support: preparation and implementation. , 2003, Patient education and counseling.

[17]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about entering screening programs. , 2003, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[18]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Research designs for studies evaluating the effectiveness of change and improvement strategies , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.

[19]  B. Rimer,et al.  Relationships among breast cancer perceived absolute risk, comparative risk, and worries. , 2000, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[20]  T. Fahey,et al.  How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians? , 2001, Quality in health care : QHC.

[21]  Chris Salisbury,et al.  Systematic review of whether nurse practitioners working in primary care can provide equivalent care to doctors , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  H. Hollnagel Explaining risk factors to patients during a general practice consultation. Conveying group-based epidemiological knowledge to individual patients. , 1999, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[23]  France Légaré,et al.  Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  G. Elwyn,et al.  Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  Ben van Steenkiste,et al.  Patients' ideas, fears and expectations of their coronary risk: barriers for primary prevention. , 2004, Patient education and counseling.

[26]  R. Jackson,et al.  Updated New Zealand cardiovascular disease risk-benefit prediction guide , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[27]  K. Steven,et al.  Shared Decision Making , 2012, Onkologische Welt.

[28]  G. Gigerenzer,et al.  Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[29]  P Kinnersley,et al.  Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. , 2000, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[30]  British Cardiac Society,et al.  Joint British recommendations on prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice: summary , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[31]  A. Laupacis,et al.  When should hypertension be treated? The different perspectives of Canadian family physicians and patients. , 2000, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[32]  Shah Ebrahim,et al.  European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Third Joint Task Force of European and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice. , 2003 .

[33]  G. Elwyn Shared Decision Making. Patient Involvement in Clinical Practice , 2001 .

[34]  Shah Ebrahim,et al.  JOINT ESC GUIDELINES 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice – Web Addenda , 2016 .

[35]  Glyn Elwyn,et al.  Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. , 2004, Family practice.

[36]  Trudy van der Weijden,et al.  Barriers to implementing cardiovascular risk tables in routine general practice , 2004, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[37]  A Coulter,et al.  Partnerships with Patients: The Pros and Cons of Shared Clinical Decision-Making , 1997, Journal of health services research & policy.