Communicating cardiovascular disease risk: an interview study of General Practitioners’ use of absolute risk within tailored communication strategies

Abstract

BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines encourage assessment of absolute CVD risk - the probability of a CVD event within a fixed time period, based on the most predictive risk factors. However, few General Practitioners (GPs) use absolute CVD risk consistently, and communication difficulties have been identified as a barrier to changing practice. This study aimed to explore GPs’ descriptions of their CVD risk communication strategies, including the role of absolute risk.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 25 GPs in New South Wales, Australia. Transcribed audio-recordings were thematically coded, using the Framework Analysis method to ensure rigour.ResultsGPs used absolute CVD risk within three different communication strategies: ‘positive’, ‘scare tactic’, and ‘indirect’. A ‘positive’ strategy, which aimed to reassure and motivate, was used for patients with low risk, determination to change lifestyle, and some concern about CVD risk. Absolute risk was used to show how they could reduce risk. A ‘scare tactic’ strategy was used for patients with high risk, lack of motivation, and a dismissive attitude. Absolute risk was used to ‘scare’ them into taking action. An ‘indirect’ strategy, where CVD risk was not the main focus, was used for patients with low risk but some lifestyle risk factors, high anxiety, high resistance to change, or difficulty understanding probabilities. Non-quantitative absolute risk formats were found to be helpful in these situations.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated how GPs use three different communication strategies to address the issue of CVD risk, depending on their perception of patient risk, motivation and anxiety. Absolute risk played a different role within each strategy. Providing GPs with alternative ways of explaining absolute risk, in order to achieve different communication aims, may improve their use of absolute CVD risk assessment in practice.

“Hosting” an implantable cardioverter defibrillator: A phenomenological inquiry

“…The description of the moment healthcare professionals proposed the ICD to our participants is particularly interesting, as each could remember and report the precise words the physician used. It appears that physicians commonly used a so called “paternalistic doctor‐centred approach,” in some cases using scare tactics, which participants deemed too direct and inappropriately intimidating (Bonner et al, ). The feeling of having no other choice but the one the doctor presented was common among our ICD recipients and contributed to the sense of resignation.…”

‘I should have taken that further’ – missed opportunities during cardiovascular risk assessment in patients with psoriasis inUKprimary care settings: a mixed‐methods study

“…A particular strength of this study was the use of T‐A‐R methods to go beyond self‐report and enable exploration of what practitioners do in practice. This addresses a limitation identified in previous studies of CVD risk communication in primary care . The study also has several limitations.…”

“…This addresses a limitation identified in previous studies of CVD risk communication in primary care. 73 The study also has several limitations. Uptake of risk assessment was relatively low (possibly patients over 40 years of age had already been offered, and/or participated in a recent health check by their practice), and our sample may be unrepresentative of the wider population of people with psoriasis.…”

Current Use of Statins for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Adherence

“…Furthermore, discussing CVD prevention strategies in terms of absolute risk is complex, though CVD awareness and understanding are critical for patients' self-participation in care [10•]. Although we have known clinician-patient shared decision making results in better patient outcomes [44], current discussion about CVD in terms of absolute risk varies among clinicians based on many psychosocial factors (e.g., provider perception of patient risk, patient anxiety and motivation to change) [45]. A standardized and validated approach to discussing risk for ASCVD would be beneficial.…”