lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Survey of physicians' practices in the control of cardiovascular risk factors: the EURIKA study.
Show others and affiliations
2012 (English)In: European journal of preventive cardiology, ISSN 2047-4881, Vol. 19, no 3, 541-550 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVES: To assess the practices of physicians in 12 European countries in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

METHODS: In 2009, 806 physicians from 12 European countries answered a questionnaire, delivered electronically or by post, regarding their assessment of patients with cardiovascular risk factors, and their use of risk calculation tools and clinical practice guidelines (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00882336). Approximately 60 physicians per country were selected (participation rate varied between 3.1% in Sweden and 22.8% in Turkey).

RESULTS: Among participating physicians, 85.2% reported using at least one clinical guideline for CVD prevention. The most popular were the ESC guidelines (55.1%). Reasons for not using guidelines included: the wide choice available (47.1%), time constraints (33.3%), lack of awareness of guidelines (27.5%), and perception that guidelines are unrealistic (23.5%). Among all physicians, 68.5% reported using global risk calculation tools. Written charts were the preferred method (69.4%) and the most commonly used was the SCORE equation (35.4%). Reasons for not using equations included time constraints (59.8%), not being convinced of their usefulness (21.7%) and lack of awareness (19.7%). Most physicians (70.8%) believed that global risk-equations have limitations; 89.8% that equations overlook important risk factors, and 66.5% that they could not be used in elderly patients. Only 46.4% of physicians stated that their local healthcare framework was sufficient for primary prevention of CVD, while 67.2% stated that it was sufficient for secondary prevention of CVD.

CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of physicians reported using clinical guidelines for primary CVD prevention. However, time constraints, lack of perceived usefulness and inadequate knowledge were common reasons for not using CVD prevention guidelines or global CVD risk assessment tools.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2012. Vol. 19, no 3, 541-550 p.
National Category
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health Economy Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems
Research subject
Health and Caring Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-21797DOI: 10.1177/1741826711407705PubMedID: 21502280OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-21797DiVA: diva2:556569
Available from: 2012-09-25 Created: 2012-09-25 Last updated: 2015-03-03Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Perk, Joep
By organisation
School of Health and Caring Sciences
Health Care Service and Management, Health Policy and Services and Health EconomyCardiac and Cardiovascular Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 45 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf