4.1 Article

Barriers to adherence to hypertension guidelines among GPs in southern Sweden: A survey

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
卷 26, 期 3, 页码 154-159

出版社

INFORMA HEALTHCARE
DOI: 10.1080/02813430802202111

关键词

barriers; family practice; guidelines; hypertension; primary care; survey

资金

  1. RD department of Primary Care in the Region of Skane
  2. Faculty of Medicine, Lund University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To evaluate barriers to adherence to hypertension guidelines among publicly employed general practitioners (GPs). Design. Questionnaire-based survey distributed to GPs in 24 randomly selected primary care centres in the Region of Skane in southern Sweden. Subjects. A total of 109 GPs received a self-administered questionnaire and 90 of them responded. Main outcome measures. Use of risk assessment programmes. Reasons to postpone or abstain from pharmacological treatment for the management of hypertension. Results. Reported managing of high blood pressure (BP) varied. In all, 53% (95% CI 42-64%) of the GPs used risk assessment programmes and nine out of 10 acknowledged blood pressure target levels. Only one in 10 did not inform the patients about these levels. The range for immediate initiating pharmacological treatment was a systolic BP 140-220 (median 170) mmHg and diastolic BP 90-110 (median 100) mmHg. One-third (32%; 95% CI 22-42%) of the GPs postponed or abstained from pharmacological treatment of hypertension due to a patient's advanced age. No statistically significant associations were observed between GPs' gender, professional experience (i.e. in terms of specialist family medicine and by number of years in practice), and specific reasons to postpone or abstain from pharmacological treatment of hypertension. Conclusion. These data suggest that GPs accept higher blood pressure levels than recommended in clinical guidelines. Old age of the patient seems to be an important barrier among GPs when considering pharmacological treatment for the management of hypertension.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据