ArticleBMC primary care2025
GPs' decision-making behaviour in the prescription of aspirin for primary prevention in elderly individuals: a qualitative study using semistructured interviews in France.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow-dose aspirin has long been recommended for primary prevention. This indication has been reconsidered owing to an unfavourable benefit-risk balance, no proven reduction in cardiovascular risk and an increase in the risk of haemorrhage. The recommendations concerning this indication are still contradictory and are a source of confusion for general practitioners (GPs), especially in the management of patients over 70 years of age who are at greater risk of complications. We explored the determinants of the decision-making behaviour of general practitioners regarding aspirin for primary prevention in patients aged 70 years and older.
methodsGrounded theory was the basis of this qualitative study, which involved individual semistructured interviews with GPs in the Auvergia region. The interviews were recorded and analysed by two researchers.
resultsTwelve GPs were interviewed, and 4 themes were observed. The distinction between primary and secondary prevention was unclear, particularly for patients with diabetes or asymptomatic atheromatous lesions. Cardiovascular risk was assessed using a standardized approach rather than a risk scoring tool. GPs considered physiological age rather than chronological age when assessing the benefits and risks associated with regular low-dose aspirin use. In the end, the opinion of the specialist and that of the patient were paramount in decision-making.
conclusionOur study provides a better understanding of the determinants of GPs' decision-making in the prescription of aspirin for primary prevention in elderly patients. This occurs in a context of uncertainty and is a source of ambivalence; thus, a clear recommendation would be beneficial.
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.