Background: Evidence on the effectiveness of educational interventions on prescribing behaviour modification in prevention of cardiovascular disease is still insufficient. We evaluated the effects of a brief educational intervention on prescription of hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), inhibitors of platelet aggregation (IPA), and antihypertensive agents (AH).
Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial with continuous medical education (CME) groups of general practitioners (GPs).
Methods: Prescription of statins, IPA, and AH were verified prior to study start (BL), immediately after index consultation (IC), and at follow-up after 6 months (FU). Prescription in patients at high risk (>15% risk of a cardiovascular event in 10 years, based on the Framingham equation) and no prescription in low-risk patients (≤ 15%) were considered appropriate.
Results: An intervention effect on prescribing could only be found for IPA. Generally, changes in prescription over time were all directed towards higher prescription rates and persisted to FU, independent of risk status and group allocation.
Conclusions: The active implementation of a brief evidence-based educational intervention on global risk in CVD did not lead directly to risk-adjusted changes in prescription. Investigations on an extended time scale would capture whether decision support of this kind would improve prescribing risk-adjusted sustainably.
De BackerGAmbrosioniEBorch-JohnsenKBrotonsCCifkovaRDallongevilleJ. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur Heart J2003; 24(17): 1601–1610.
2.
GrahamIAtarDBorch-JohnsenKBoysenGBurellGCifkovaR. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2007; 14(Suppl 2): 1–113.
3.
SheridanSLCrespoE. Does the routine use of global coronary heart disease risk scores translate into clinical benefits or harms? A systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res2008; 8: 60–60.
4.
CooneyMTDudinaALGrahamIM. Value and limitations of existing scores for the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a review for clinicians. J Am Coll Cardiol2009; 54(14): 1209–1227.
5.
D’AgostinoRBSrVasanRSPencinaMJWolfPACobainMMassaroJM. General cardiovascular risk profile for use in primary care: the Framingham Heart Study. Circulation2008; 117(6): 743–753.
6.
Steenkiste vanBWeijden van derTStoffersHEJHKesterADMTimmermansDRMGrolR. Improving cardiovascular risk management: a randomized, controlled trial on the effect of a decision support tool for patients and physicians. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2007; 14(1): 44–50.
7.
O’ConnorAMBennettCLStaceyDBarryMColNFEdenKB. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2009; 3: CD001431–CD001431.
8.
EdwardsAElwynG (eds) Shared decision-making in health care: Achieving evidence-based patient choice, 2nd ed. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2009.
9.
CooneyMTDudinaAD’AgostinoRGrahamIM. Cardiovascular risk-estimation systems in primary prevention: do they differ? do they make a difference? can we see the future?Circulation2010; 122(3): 300–310.
10.
GoldmanREParkerDREatonCBBorkanJMGramlingRCovertRTAhernDK. Patients’ perceptions of cholesterol, cardiovascular disease risk, and risk communication strategies. Ann Fam Med2006; 4(3): 205–212.
11.
SheridanSLVieraAJKrantzMJIceCLSteinmanLEPetersKE. The effect of giving global coronary risk information to adults: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med2010; 170(3): 230–239.
12.
CoulterAEllinsJ. Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. BMJ2007; 335(7609): 24–27.
13.
WensingMBrogeBKaufmann-KollePAndresESzecsenyiJ. Quality circles to improve prescribing patterns in primary medical care: what is their actual impact?J Eval Clin Pract2004; 10(3): 457–466.
14.
GrimshawJMThomasREMacLennanGFraserCRamsayCRValeL. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess2004; 8(6): iii–iv, 1–72.
15.
KronesTKellerHSönnichsenASadowskiEMBaumEWegscheiderK. Absolute cardiovascular disease risk and shared decision making in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Fam Med2008; 6(3): 218–227.
16.
SullivanLMMassaroJMD’AgostinoRB. Presentation of multivariate data for clinical use: the Framingham Study risk score functions. Stat Med2004; 23(10): 1631–1660.
17.
Man Son HingMLaupacisAO’ConnorAMBiggsJDrakeEYetisirE. A patient decision aid regarding antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation. JAMA1999; 282(8): 737–743.
18.
Man-Son-HingMLaupacisAO’RourkeKMolnarFJMahonJChanKBY. Determination of the clinical importance of study results: a review. J Gen Intern Med2002; 17(6): 469–476.
19.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
20.
GrissomRJKimJJ. Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.
21.
MoscaLLinfanteAHBenjaminEJBerraKHayesSNWalshBW. National study of physician awareness and adherence to cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. Circulation2005; 111(4): 499–510.
22.
SmithMACoxEDBartellJM. Overprescribing of lipid lowering agents. Qual Saf Health Care2006; 15(4): 251–257.
23.
PersellSDZeiCKenzieACameronKAZielinskiMDonaldM. Potential use of 10-year and lifetime coronary risk information for preventive cardiology prescribing decisions: a primary care physician survey. Arch Intern Med2010; 170(5): 470–477.
24.
VlekAVisserenFAlgraASoedamah-MuthuSMollFDoevendansP. Trends in vascular risk factors and medication use in patients with various manifestations of vascular diseases or type 2 diabetes mellitus from 1996 to 2007: the Second Manifestations of ARTerial disease study. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2010; 17(6): 628–636.
25.
HallLMJungRTLeeseGP. Controlled trial of effect of documented cardiovascular risk scores on prescribing. BMJ2003; 326(7383): 251–252.
26.
GroverSALowensteynIJosephLKaouacheMMarchandSCoupalL. Patient knowledge of coronary risk profile improves the effectiveness of dyslipidemia therapy. Arch Intern Med2007; 167(21): 2296–2303.
27.
van DisIKromhoutDGeleijnseJMBoerJMAVerschurenWMM. Evaluation of cardiovascular risk predicted by different SCORE equations: The Netherlands as an example. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2010; 17(2): 244–249.
28.
GrahamIMStewartMHertogMG. Factors impeding the implementation of cardiovascular prevention guidelines: findings from a survey conducted by the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil2006; 13(5): 839–845.
29.
GrolRGrimshawJ. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet.2003; 362(9391): 1225–1230.
