General practitioner perceptions of assessment and reporting of absolute cardiovascular disease risk via pathology services: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention recommend assessment of absolute CVD risk to guide clinical management. Despite this, use among general practitioners (GPs) remains limited. OBJECTIVE: Pathology services may provide an appropriate setting to assess and report absolute CVD risk in patients attending for cholesterol measurement. This study aimed to explore GPs perceptions of such a service. METHODS: A focus group and semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs (n = 18) in Tasmania, Australia, to identify perceptions of assessment and reporting of absolute CVD risk via pathology services. An example pathology report including absolute CVD risk was provided and discussed. Audio-recordings were transcribed and thematically coded by two researchers. RESULTS: Almost all GPs identified that absolute CVD risk assessed and reported via pathology services could address deficits in practice. First, by reducing the number of appointments required to collect risk factors. Second, by providing a systematic (rather than opportunistic) approach for assessment of absolute CVD risk. Third, by reducing misclassification of patient CVD risk caused by overreliance on clinical intuition. All GPs reported they would order absolute CVD risk when issuing a cholesterol referral if such a service was offered. GPs recommended improving the service by providing information on methods used to measure risk factors on the pathology report. CONCLUSIONS: Absolute CVD risk assessed and reported via pathology services may address challenges of screening CVD risk experienced by GPs in practice and encourage dedicated follow-up care for CVD prevention.

A qualitative investigation of the health economic impacts of bariatric surgery for obesity and implications for improved practice in health economics.

Obesity is an economic problem. Bariatric surgery is cost-effective for severe and resistant obesity. Most economic evaluations of bariatric surgery use administrative data and narrowly defined direct medical costs in their quantitative analyses. Demand far outstrips supply for bariatric surgery. Further allocation of health care resources to bariatric surgery (particularly public) could be stimulated by new health economic evidence that supports the provision of bariatric surgery. We postulated that qualitative research methods would elicit important health economic dimensions of bariatric surgery that would typically be omitted from the current economic evaluation framework, nor be reported and therefore not considered by policymakers with sufficient priority. We listened to patients: Focus group data were analysed thematically with software assistance. Key themes were identified inductively through a dialogue between the qualitative data and pre-existing economic theory (perspective, externalities, and emotional capital). We identified the concept of emotional capital where participants described life-changing desires to be productive and participate in their communities postoperatively. After self-funding bariatric surgery, some participants experienced financial distress. We recommend a mixed-methods approach to the economic evaluation of bariatric surgery. This could be operationalised in health economic model conceptualisation and construction, through to the separate reporting of qualitative results to supplement quantitative results.

What are the support experiences and needs of patients who have received bariatric surgery?

OBJECTIVE: To explore the support needs and experiences of patients who had received publicly or privately funded bariatric surgery and the importance of this support in mediating outcomes of surgery. METHODS: Seven semi-structured focus groups were conducted. A broad interview schedule guided the discussions which were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty-six women and 15 men with a mean age of 54 years (range 24-72) participated in the study. Participants described support needs from health professionals, significant others (family and friends), peers (bariatric surgery recipients) and the general community. Peer, dietetic and psychological support were identified as important factors influencing the outcomes (e.g. weight reduction or health improvement) or experience of bariatric surgery but were identified as infrequently received or inadequately provided. Psychological support was proposed as one of the most significant but commonly overlooked components of care. Support needs appeared higher in the first year post-surgery, when subsequent related or unrelated surgeries were required and following significant life change such as worsening health. For some participants, deficits in support appeared to negatively influence the experience or outcomes of surgery. CONCLUSION: Providers of bariatric surgery should discuss support needs and accessibility regularly with patients especially in the first year post-surgery and following significant change in a patient's life (e.g. declined health or childbirth). Nutrition, psychological and peer support (e.g. through support groups) may be especially important for some patients.

General practitioners maintain a focus on blood pressure management rather than absolute cardiovascular disease risk management.

BACKGROUND: Absolute cardiovascular disease (aCVD) risk assessment is recommended in CVD prevention guidelines. Yet, General Practitioners (GPs) often focus on single risk factors, including blood pressure (BP). Pathology services may be suitable to undertake high-quality automated unobserved BP (AOBP) measurement and aCVD risk assessment. This study explored GP attitudes towards AOBP measurement via pathology services and the role of BP in aCVD risk management. METHODS: A brief survey was completed, after which a focus group (n = 8 GPs) and interviews (n = 10 GPs) explored attitudes to AOBP and aCVD risk via pathology services with an example pathology report discussed. Verbatim transcripts were thematically coded. RESULTS: GPs predominantly used doctor-measured BP despite low levels of confidence. High BP measured by AOBP reported with aCVD risk via pathology services, would prompt a follow-up response. However, GPs focused on BP management. GPs were concerned about AOBP equivalency to routine BP measurements. After protocol explanation, GPs reported AOBP could value-add to care delivery. CONCLUSION: GPs lacked familiarity of AOBP and maintained a focus on BP management in the context of absolute CVD risk. Targeted education on AOBP and BP management as part of absolute CVD risk is needed to support guideline-directed care in practice.