T van der Weijden1, B van Steenkiste, H E J H Stoffers, D R M Timmermans, R Grol. 1. Department of General Practice/Centre for Quality of Care Research (WOK), Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Trudy.vanderWeijden@hag.unimaas.nl
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasize identifying high-risk patients for more intensive management, but patients' misconceptions of risk hamper implementation. Insight is needed into the type of patients that general practitioners (GPs) encounter in their cardiovascular prevention activities. How appropriate are the risk perceptions and worries of patients with whom GPs discuss CVD risks? What determines inappropriate risk perception? METHOD: Cross-sectional study in 34 general practices. The study included patients aged 40 to 70 years with whom CVD risk was discussed during consultation. After the consultation, the GPs completed a registration form, and patients completed a questionnaire. Correlations between patients' actual CVD risk and risk perceptions were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 490 patients were included. In 17% of the consultations, patients were actually at high risk. Risk was perceived inappropriately by nearly 4 in 5 high-risk patients (incorrect optimism) and by 1 in 5 low-risk patients (incorrect pessimism). Smoking, hypertension, and obesity were determinants of perceiving CVD risk as high, whereas surprisingly, diabetic patients did not report any anxiety about their CVD risk. Men were more likely to perceive their CVD risk inappropriately than women. CONCLUSION: In communicating CVD risk, GPs must be aware that they mostly encounter low-risk patients and that the perceived risk and worry do not necessarily correspond with the actual risk. Incorrect perceptions of CVD risk among men and patients with diabetes were striking.
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasize identifying high-risk patients for more intensive management, but patients' misconceptions of risk hamper implementation. Insight is needed into the type of patients that general practitioners (GPs) encounter in their cardiovascular prevention activities. How appropriate are the risk perceptions and worries of patients with whom GPs discuss CVD risks? What determines inappropriate risk perception? METHOD: Cross-sectional study in 34 general practices. The study included patients aged 40 to 70 years with whom CVD risk was discussed during consultation. After the consultation, the GPs completed a registration form, and patients completed a questionnaire. Correlations between patients' actual CVD risk and risk perceptions were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 490 patients were included. In 17% of the consultations, patients were actually at high risk. Risk was perceived inappropriately by nearly 4 in 5 high-risk patients (incorrect optimism) and by 1 in 5 low-risk patients (incorrect pessimism). Smoking, hypertension, and obesity were determinants of perceiving CVD risk as high, whereas surprisingly, diabeticpatients did not report any anxiety about their CVD risk. Men were more likely to perceive their CVD risk inappropriately than women. CONCLUSION: In communicating CVD risk, GPs must be aware that they mostly encounter low-risk patients and that the perceived risk and worry do not necessarily correspond with the actual risk. Incorrect perceptions of CVD risk among men and patients with diabetes were striking.
Authors: Thais N Helou; Raul D Santos; Antonio G Laurinavicius; Marcio Sommer Bittencourt; Antonio E P Pesaro; Fabio G M Franco; Raquel D O Conceição; José A M Carvalho; Fernando M F Silva; Mauricio Wajngarten; Marcelo Katz Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: Dea Kehler; Morten Bondo Christensen; Mette Bech Risør; Torsten Lauritzen; Bo Christensen Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Carlos Brotons; Irene Moral; Diana Fernández; Mireia Puig; M Teresa Vilella; Teresa Puig; LLuís Cuixart; Gemma Férriz; Anna M Pedro; Roger Codinachs; Mónica Rodríguez; Rubén Fuentes Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 3.390