Systematic review of implementation strategies for risk tables in the prevention of cardiovascular diseases

Vascular Health and Risk Management

Volumn 4, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 535-545

  van Steenkiste, Ben ^a   Grol, Richard ^a   van der Weijden, Trudy ^a  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cardiovascular diseases; Implementation; Primary prevention; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CARDIOVASCULAR RISK; CINAHL; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL TRIAL; EMBASE; EMPIRICAL RESEARCH; HIGH RISK PATIENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; INTERVENTION STUDY; MEDLINE; NURSING CARE; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT SELECTION; PRIMARY PREVENTION; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; PSYCINFO; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; SELF REPORT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TEAMWORK;

CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRIMARY PREVENTION; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 47949090724     PISSN: 11766344     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (51)

1. Brindle P, Beswick A, Fahey T, et al. 2006. The accuracy and impact of risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review. Heart, 92:1752-59.
2. Campbell S, Reeves D, Kontopantelis E, et al. 2007. Quality of primary care in England with the introduction of pay for performance. N Engl J Med, 357:181-90.
3. Conroy RM, Pyorala K, Fitzgerald AP, et al. 2003. Estimation of ten-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease in Europe: the SCORE project. Eur Heart J, 24:987-1003.
4. De Koning JS, Klazinga NS, Koudstaal PJ, et al. 2004. Quality of care in stroke prevention: results of an audit study among general practitioners. Prev Med, 38:129-36.
5. De Muylder R, Lorant V, Paulus D, et al. 2004. Obstacles to cardiovascular prevention in general practice. Acta Cardiol, 59:119-25.
6. De Muylder R, Tonglet R, Nackers F, et al. 2005. Randomised evaluation of a specific training of general practitioners in cardiovascular prevention. Acta Cardiol, 60:199-205.
7. Eaton CB, Galliher JM, McBride PE, et al. 2006. Family physician's knowledge, beliefs, and self-reported practice patterns regarding hyperlipidemia: a National Research Network (NRN) survey. J Am Board Fam Med, 19:46-53.
8. Edelman D, Oddone EZ, Liebowitz RS, et al. 2006. A multidimensional integrative medicine intervention to improve cardiovascular risk. J Gen Intern Med, 21:728-34.
9. Edwards A, Elwyn G. 1999. The potential benefits of decision aids in clinical medicine. JAMA 282:779-80.
10. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, et al. 2001. Presenting risk information - a review of the effects of "framing" and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Comm, 6:61-82.
11. Edwards A, Unigwe S, Elwyn G, et al. 2003. Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about entering screening programs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1:CD001865.
12. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Eccles M, et al. 2001. Decision analysis in patient care. Lancet, 358:571-4.
13. Erhardt L, Hobbs FD. 2002. Public perceptions of cardiovascular risk in five European countries: the react survey. Int J Clin Pract, 56:638-44.
14. Feldman Stewart D, Kocovski N, McConnell BA, et al. 2000. Perception of quantitative information for treatment decisions. Med Decis Mak, 20:228-38.
15. Ford Dr, Walker J, Game FL, et al. 2001 Effect of computerized coronary heart disease risk assessment on the use of lipid-lowering therapy in general practice patients. Coronary Health Care, 5:4-8.
16. Fretheim A, Havelsrud K, Oxman AD. 2006a. Rational Prescribing in Primary care (RaPP): process evaluation of an intervention to improve prescribing of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs. Implement Sci, 1:1-19.
17. Fretheim A, Oxman AD, Havelsrud K, et al. 2006b. Rational prescribing in primary care (RaPP): a cluster randomized trial of a tailored intervention. PLoS Med, 3:e134.
18. Frijling BD, Lobo CM, Keus IM, et al. 2004. Perceptions of cardiovascular risk among patients with hypertension or diabetes. Patient Educ Couns, 52:47-53.
19. Graham IM, Stewart M, Hertog MG. 2006 Factors impeding the implementation of cardiovascular prevention guidelines: findings from a survey conducted by the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil, 13:839-45.
20. Grimshaw J, McAuley LM, Bero LA, et al. 2003. Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes. Qual Saf Health Care, 12:298-303.
21. Grol R. 1997. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BMJ. 315:418-21.
22. Grol R. 2001. Improving the quality of medical care: building bridges among professional pride, payer profit, and patient satisfaction. JAMA, 286:2578-85.
23. Grol R. Grimshaw J. 2003. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Lancet, 362:1225-30.
24. Grol R. Wensing M. 2004. What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Med J Aust, 180:57-60.
25. Grol RP, Bosch MC, Hulscher ME, et al. 2007 Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q, 85:93-138.
26. Hall LM, Jung RT, Leese GP. 2003. Controlled trial of effect of documented cardiovascular risk scores on prescribing. BMJ, 326:251-2.
27. Hetlevik I, Holmen J, Kruger O. 1999. Implementing clinical guidelines in the treatment of hypertension in general practice. Evaluation of patient outcome related to implementation of a computer-based clinical decision support system. Scand J Prim Health Care, 17:35-40.
28. Hetlevik I, Holmen J, Kruger O, et al. 2000. Implementing clinical guidelines in the treatment of diabetes mellitus in general practice. Evaluation of effort, process, and patient outcome related to implementation of a computer-based decision support system. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 16:210-27.
29. Jackson R, Beaglehole R. 1995. Evidence-based management of dyslipidaemia. Lancet, 346:1440-2.
30. Jacobson TA, Gutkin SW, Harper CR. 2006. Effects of a global risk educational tool on primary coronary prevention: the Atherosclerosis Assessment Via Total Risk (AVIATOR) study. Curr Med Res Opin, 22:1065-73.
31. Lipkus IM, Klein WM, Rimer BK. 2001. Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev, 10:895-8.
32. McElduff P, Lyratzopoulos G, Edwards R, et al. 2004. Will changes in primary care improve health outcomes? Modelling the impact of financial incentives introduced to improve quality of care in the UK. Qual Saf Health Care, 13:191-7.
33. Montgomery AA, Fahey T, Peters TJ, et al. 2000. Evaluation of computer based clinical decision support system and risk chart for management of hypertension in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 320:686-90.
34. Mosca L, Linfante AH, Benjamin EJ, et al. 2005. National study of physician awareness and adherence to cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. Circulation, 111:499-510.
35. Peters TJ, Montgomery AA, Fahey T. 1999. How accurately do primary health care professionals use cardiovascular risk tables in the management of hypertension? Br J Gen Pract, 49:987-8.
36. Rakow T. 2001. Differences in belief about likely outcomes account for differences in doctors' treatment preferences: but what accounts for the differences in belief? Qual Health Care, 10(Suppl 1)i44-9.
37. Roland M. 2004. Linking physicians' pay to the quality of care - a major experiment in the United kingdom. N Engl J Med, 351:1448-54.
38. Shaw B, Cheater F, Baker R, et al. 2005. Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 1:CD005470.
39. Sheridan S, Pignone M, Mulrow C. 2003. Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians. J Gen Intern Med, 18:1039-52.
40. Sinclair G, Kerr A. 2006. The Bold Promise Project: a system change in primary care to support cardiovascular risk screening. N Z Med J, 119:U2312.
41. Sol BG, Van Der Bijl JJ, Banga JD, et al. 2005, Vascular risk management through nurse-led self-management programs. J Vasc Nurs, 23:20-4.
42. Sutton M, McLean G. 2006. Determinants of primary medical care quality measured under the new UK contract: cross sectional study. BMJ, 332:389-90.
43. Thomas S, Van Der Weijden T, Van Drenth BB, et al. 1999. NHG-Standaard Cholesterol (eerste herziening). Huisarts Wet, 42:406-17.
44. Timmermans D, Molewijk B, Stiggelbout A, et al. 2004. Different formats for communicating surgical risks to patients and the effect on choice of treatment. Patient Educ Couns, 54:255-63.
45. Torley D, Zwar N, Comino EJ, et al. 2005. GPs' views of absolute cardiovascular risk and its role in primary prevention. Aust Fam Physician, 34:503-4, 7.
46. Vale MJ, Jelinek MV, Best JD, et al. 2003. Coaching patients On Achieving Cardiovascular Health (COACH): a multicenter randomized trial in patients with coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med, 163:2775-83.
47. Van Der Weijden T, Steenkiste Van B, Stoffers HE, et al. 2007. Primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in general practice; mismatch between cardiovascular risk and patients' risk perceptions. Med Decis Mak, 6:754-61.
48. Van Steenkiste B, Van Der Weijden T, Timmermans D, et al. 2004. Patients' ideas, fears and expectations of their coronary risk: barriers for primary prevention. Patient Educ Couns, 55:301-7.
49. Van Steenkiste B, Van Der Weijden T, Stoffers HE, et al. 2007. Improving cardiovascular risk management: a randomized, controlled trial on the effect of a decision support tool for patients and physicians. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil, 14:44-50.
50. Wang TJ, Gona P, Larson MG, et al. 2006. Multiple biomarkers for the prediction of first major cardiovascular events and death. N Engl J Med, 355:2631-9.
51. Will CM. 2005. Arguing about the evidence: readers, writers and inscription devices in coronary heart disease risk assessment. Sociol Health III, 27:780-801.