Background Hypertension is the largest single contributor to the global burden of disease, affecting an estimated 1.39 billion people worldwide. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can aid in the effective management of this common condition, however, inconsistencies exist between CPGs, and the extent of this is unknown. Understanding the differences in CPG recommendations across income settings may provide an important means of understanding some of the global variations in clinical outcomes related to hypertension. Aims This study aims to analyse the variation between hypertension CPGs globally. It aims to assess the variation in three areas: diagnostic threshold and staging, treatment and target blood pressure (BP) recommendations in hypertension. Methods A search was conducted on the MEDLINE repository to identify national and international hypertension CPGs from 2010 to May 2020. An additional country-specific grey-literature search was conducted for all countries and territories of the world as identified by the World Bank. Data describing the diagnosis, staging, treatment and target blood pressure were extracted from CPGs, and variations between CPGs for these domains were analysed. Results Forty-eight CPGs from across all World Bank income settings were selected for analysis. Ninety-six per cent of guidelines defined hypertension as a clinic-based BP of ≥140/90 mmHg, and 87% of guidelines recommended a target BP of < 140/90 mmHg. In the pharmacological treatment of hypertension, eight different first-step, 17 different second-step and six different third-step drug recommendations were observed. Low-income countries preferentially recommended diuretics (63%) in the first-step treatment, whilst high-income countries offered more choice between antihypertensive classes. Forty-four per cent of guidelines, of which 71% were from higher-income contexts recommended initiating treatment with dual-drug therapy at BP 160/100 mmHg or higher. Conclusion This study found that CPGs remained largely consistent in the definition, staging and target BP recommendations for hypertension. Extensive variation was observed in treatment recommendations, particularly for second-line therapy. Variation existed between income settings; low-income countries prescribed cheaper drugs, offered less clinician choice in medications and initiated dual therapy at later stages than higher-income countries. Future research exploring the underlying drivers of this variation may improve outcomes for hypertensive patients across clinical contexts.
Background Hypertension accounts for the greatest burden of disease worldwide, yet hypertension awareness and control rates are suboptimal, especially within low- and middle-income countries. Guidelines can enable consistency of care and improve health outcomes. A small body of studies investigating clinicians’ perceptions and implementation of hypertension guidelines exists, mostly focussed on higher income settings. This study aims to explore how hypertension guidelines are used by clinicians across different resource settings, and the factors influencing their use. Methods A qualitative approach was employed using convenience sampling and in-depth semi-structured interviews. Seventeen medical doctors were interviewed over video or telephone call from March to August 2020. Two clinicians worked in low-income countries, ten in middle-income countries, and five in high-income countries. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded inductively. Reflexive thematic analysis was used. Results Themes were generated at three levels at which clinicians perceived influencing factors to be operating: healthcare worker, healthcare worker interactions with patients, and the wider health system. Within each level, influencing factors were described as barriers to and facilitators of guideline use. Variation in factors occurred across income settings. At the healthcare worker level, usability of guidelines, trust in guidelines, attitudes and views about guidelines’ purpose, and relevance to patient populations were identified as themes. Influencing factors at the health system level were accessibility of equipment and medications, workforce, and access to healthcare settings. Influences at the patient level were clinician perceived patient motivation and health literacy, and access to, and cost of treatment, although these represented doctors’ perceptions rather than patient perceived factors. Conclusions This study adds a high level global view to previous studies investigating clinician perspectives on hypertension guideline use. Guidelines should be evidence-based, regularly updated and attention should be given to increasing applicability to LMICs and a range of healthcare professionals.
This study analyses the obstetric–neonatal outcomes of women in labour with symptomatic and asymptomatic COVID-19. A retrospective, multicenter, observational study was carried out between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021 in eight public hospitals in the Valencian community (Spain). The chi-squared test compared the obstetric–neonatal outcomes and general care for symptomatic and asymptomatic women. In total, 11,883 births were assisted in participating centers, with 10.9 per 1000 maternities (n = 130) infected with SARS-CoV-2. The 20.8% were symptomatic and had more complications both upon admission (p = 0.042) and during puerperium (p = 0.042), as well as transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU). The percentage of admission to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) was greater among offspring of symptomatic women compared to infants born of asymptomatic women (p < 0.001). Compared with asymptomatic women, those with symptoms underwent less labour companionship (p = 0.028), less early skin-to-skin contact (p = 0.029) and greater mother–infant separation (p = 0.005). The overall maternal mortality rate was 0.8%. No vertical transmission was recorded. In conclusion, symptomatic infected women are at increased risk of lack of labour companionship, mother–infant separation, and admission to the ICU, as well as to have preterm births and for NICU admissions.
Background Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) aim to standardize clinical care. Increasingly, hospitals rely on locally produced guidelines alongside national guidance. This study examines variation between national and local CPGs, using the example of acute paediatric asthma guidance from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Methods Fifteen British and Dutch local CPGs were collected with the matching national guidance for the management of acute asthma in children under 18 years old. The drug sequences, routes and methods of administration recommended for patients with severe asthma and the tone of recommendation across both types of CPGs were schematically represented. Deviations from national guidance were measured. Variation in recommended doses of intravenous salbutamol was examined. CPG quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. Results British and Dutch national CPGs differed in the recommended drug choices, sequences, routes and methods of administration for severe asthma. Dutch national guidance was more rigidly defined. Local British CPGs diverged from national guidance for 23% of their recommended interventions compared to 8% for Dutch local CPGs. Five British local guidelines and two Dutch local guidelines differed from national guidance for multiple treatment steps. Variation in second-line recommendations was greater than for first-line recommendations across local CPGs from both countries. Recommended starting doses for salbutamol infusions varied by more than tenfold. The quality of the sampled local CPGs was low across all AGREE II domains. Conclusions Local CPGs for the management of severe acute paediatric asthma featured substantial variation and frequently diverged from national guidance. Although limited to one condition, this study suggests that unmeasured variation across local CPGs may contribute to variation of care more broadly, with possible effects on healthcare quality.
IntroductionIncreasingly, hospitals rely on local clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) alongside national guidance to standardise clinical care. This study examines variation between national and local CPGs, using the example of acute paediatric asthma (APA) CPGs from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.MethodsFifteen British and Dutch local CPGs were collected with the matching national guidance for the management of APA. The drug sequences, routes and methods of administration recommended for patients with severe APA were represented. Deviations from national guidance were measured. Variation in recommended doses of intravenous salbutamol was examined. CPG quality was assessed using the AGREE II instrument.ResultsBritish and Dutch national CPGs differed in the recommended drug choices, sequences, routes and methods of administration for severe APA. Local British CPGs diverged from national guidance for 23% of their recommended interventions compared to 8% for Dutch local CPGs. Variation in second-line recommendations was greater than for first-line recommendations across local CPGs from both countries. Recommended starting doses for salbutamol infusions varied by more than tenfold. The quality of the sampled local CPGs was low across five out of six AGREE domains (<60%).ConclusionsLocal CPGs for the management of severe APA featured substantial variation and frequently diverged from national guidance. Their methodological quality was low. Although limited to one condition, this study suggests that unmeasured variation across local CPGs may contribute to variation of care more broadly, potentially undermining healthcare quality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.