Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27178972›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Stroke survivors', caregivers' and GPs' attitudes towards a polypill for the secondary prevention of stroke: a qualitative interview study.

James Jamison, Jonathan Graffy, Ricky Mullis, Jonathan Mant, Stephen Sutton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Patient beliefs and attitudes to taking statins: systematic review of qualitative studies.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

James JamisonBehavioural Science Group, Primary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
Jonathan GraffyPrimary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
Ricky MullisPrimary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK.
Jonathan MantPrimary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Cambridge, UK.
Stephen SuttonBehavioural Science Group, Primary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo understand the perspectives of stroke survivors, caregivers and general practitioners (GPs) on a polypill approach, consisting of blood pressure and cholesterol-lowering therapies, with or without aspirin, for the secondary prevention of stroke.

methodsA qualitative interview study was undertaken in 5 GP surgeries in the East of England. 28 survivors of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) were interviewed, 14 of them with a caregiver present, along with a convenience sample of 5 GPs, to assess attitudes towards a polypill and future use. Topic guides explored participants attitudes, potential uptake and long-term use, management of polypill medication and factors influencing the decision to prescribe. Data were analysed using a grounded theory approach. Key themes are presented and illustrated with verbatim quotes.

resultsThe analysis identified 3 key themes: polypill benefits, polypill concerns and polypill lessons for implementation. Stroke/TIA survivors were positive about the polypill concept and considered it acceptable in the secondary prevention of stroke. Perceived benefits of a polypill included convenience resulting in improved adherence and reduced burden of treatment. Caregivers felt that a polypill would improve medication-taking practices, and GPs were open to prescribing it to those at increased cardiovascular risk. However, concerns raised included whether a polypill provided equivalent therapeutic benefit, side effects through combining medications, consequences of non-adherence, lack of flexibility in regulating dosage, disruption to current treatment and suitability to the wider stroke population.

conclusionsParticipants acknowledged potential advantages in a polypill approach for secondary prevention of stroke; however, significant concerns remain. Further research on the efficacy of a polypill is needed to reassure practitioners whose concerns around inflexibility and treatment suitability are likely to influence the decision to prescribe a polypill for secondary prevention of stroke. Acceptability among survivors, caregivers and GPs is likely to determine the uptake and subsequent use of a polypill in the future.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCaregiversPatient SatisfactionAgedAged, 80 and overCardiovascular AgentsFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchSecondary PreventionStrokeSurvivorsCardiovascular AgentsPRIMARY CAREQUALITATIVE RESEARCHSTROKE MEDICINE

Identifiers

PMID27178972
PMCPMC4874103
OpenAlexW2304820054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.