ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2004
Evidence-based cardiovascular care. Family physicians' views of obstacles and opportunities.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harmonization of guidelines for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease: the C-CHANGE Initiative.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2011Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore obstacles to and opportunities for applying specific lifestyle and pharmacologic recommendations on chronic ischemic heart disease.
designQualitative study.
settingRural, town, and city settings in Nova Scotia.
participantsFifty family physicians caring for patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease.
methodNine focus groups were conducted, audiotaped, and transcribed. Seven recommendations had been selected for discussion based on their relevance to primary care, strength, and class of supporting evidence. Analysis was guided by grounded-theory methodology. MAIN
findings"Ischemic events" can be powerful motivators for change, whereas the asymptomatic nature of CV risks and distant outcomes can form obstacles. Trust built through previous experiences and the opportunity to repeat important messages can facilitate application of evidence, but patient-physician relationships can also pose obstacles.
conclusionPhysicians can take steps to improve care, but success at reducing CV risks depends upon active involvement of many health professionals and community resources. Future guideline implementation should focus on patient-oriented issues, such as comorbidity and treatment preferences.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15526877PMC2214514What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.