ArticleBMJ open2017
Study protocol for a matter of heart: a qualitative study of patient factors driving overuse of cardiac catheterisation.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coronary Revascularization and Long-Term Survivorship in Chronic Coronary Syndrome.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Optimizing Organ Donation: Expert Opinion from Austria, Germany, Spain and the U.K.Annals of transplantation · 2020Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOveruse of cardiac catheterisation (CC) for stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is documented in Germany and other regions, although percutaneous coronary interventions do not provide a benefit over medical therapy for stable patients. Various studies investigated health system, physician and patient factors driving non-adherence to guidelines which recommend a stepwise approach with invasive procedures only in case of signs of ischaemia in non-invasive testing. In a larger-scale project, we aim to better understand the patients' perspective in order to develop an intervention that enhances patient's acceptance of this stepwise diagnostic approach for stable CAD. As a first step, this qualitative study aims to identify patient factors that prevent and promote the described overuse. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The exploratory qualitative interview study will include about 20 patients with stable CAD and a history of acute coronary syndrome from two German teaching practices. Narrative, structured interviews designed to last 30 to 90 min will be conducted. The interviews will be analysed using qualitative content analysis by Mayring. The analysis will address the following questions: (1) What are reasons for stable patients to undergo CC? (2) How do patients deal with their heart disease (secondary prevention)? (3) Which processes do patients describe regarding decision-making for non-invasive and invasive coronary procedures? (4) What information needs exist on behalf of patients to better understand the stepwise diagnostic approach outlined in guidelines and thereby avoid low-appropriate CCs? Based on these data, empirical typification will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study was obtained. All participants will provide written informed consent. Data will be pseudonymised for analysis. The findings will contribute to the development of an appropriate intervention. Results will be disseminated by conference presentations and journal publications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.