Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGreaves, K
dc.contributor.authorSmith, A
dc.contributor.authorAgostino, J
dc.contributor.authorKunarajah, K
dc.contributor.authorStanton, T
dc.contributor.authorKorda, R
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-04T02:52:43Z
dc.date.available2020-09-04T02:52:43Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033859
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/397076
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To describe general practitioners' (GPs') absolute cardiovascular disease risk (ACVDR) self-reported assessment practices and their relationship to knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about ACVDR. Design: Cross-sectional survey with opportunistic sampling (October-December 2017). Setting: Sunshine Coast region, Queensland, Australia. Participants: 111 GPs responded to the survey. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Proportion of GPs reporting a high (≥80%) versus moderate (60%-79%)/low (<60%) percentage of eligible patients receiving ACVDR assessment; proportion agreeing with statements pertaining to knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about ACVDR and associations between these factors. Results: Of the 111 respondents, 78% reported using the Australian ACVDR calculator; 45% reported high, 25% moderate and 30% low ACVDR assessment rates; >85% reported knowing how to use ACVDR assessment tools, believed assessment valuable and were comfortable with providing guideline-recommended treatment. Around half believed patients understood the concept of high risk and were willing to adopt recommendations. High assessment rates (vs moderate/low) were less likely among older GPs (≥45 vs ≤34 years, age-adjusted and sex-adjusted OR (aOR) 0.36, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.97). Those who answered knowledge-based questions about the guidelines incorrectly had lower assessment rates, including those who answered questions on patient eligibility (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.11). A high assessment rate was more likely among GPs who believed there was sufficient time to do the assessment (aOR 3.79, 95% CI 1.23 to 11.61) and that their patients were willing to undertake lifestyle modification (aOR 2.29, 95% CI 1.02 to 5.15). Over 75% of GPs agreed better patient education, nurse-led assessment and computer-reminder prompts would enable higher assessment rates. Conclusions: Although the majority of GPs report using the ACVDR calculator when undertaking a CVD risk assessment, there is a need to increase the actual proportion of eligible patients undergoing ACVDR assessment. This may be achieved by improving GP assessment practices such as GP and patient knowledge of CVD risk, providing sufficient time and nurse-led assessment.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherBMJ
dc.relation.ispartofissue8
dc.relation.ispartofjournalBMJ Open
dc.relation.ispartofvolume10
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchHealth services and systems
dc.subject.fieldofresearchPublic health
dc.subject.fieldofresearchOther health sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3202
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4203
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4206
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4299
dc.subject.keywordscardiac epidemiology
dc.subject.keywordsepidemiology
dc.subject.keywordspreventive medicine
dc.titleCross-sectional survey describing general practitioners' absolute cardiovascular disease risk assessment practices and their relationship to knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about cardiovascular disease risk in Queensland, Australia
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dcterms.bibliographicCitationGreaves, K; Smith, A; Agostino, J; Kunarajah, K; Stanton, T; Korda, R, Cross-sectional survey describing general practitioners' absolute cardiovascular disease risk assessment practices and their relationship to knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about cardiovascular disease risk in Queensland, Australia, BMJ Open, 2020, 10 (8)
dcterms.licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.date.updated2020-09-03T04:06:07Z
dc.description.versionVersion of Record (VoR)
gro.rights.copyright© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. 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, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial.
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorGreaves, Kim
gro.griffith.authorStanton, Tony


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record