ArticleTherapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease
Evaluating the implementation of guideline-directed medical therapy in the treatment of chronic heart failure at public hospitals in Ethiopia.
Article in Therapeutic advances in cardiovascular disease. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) prolongs survival in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, different countries implement GDMT differently, and many patients are still undertreated. Therefore, this study aimed to assess GDMT utilization in patients with chronic HFrEF at the adult cardiac clinics of three selected hospitals in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
methodsAn explanatory sequential mixed-methods (quantitative cross-sectional followed by qualitative phenomenological) study design was used to assess GDMT usage in patients with HFrEF at the study settings from September 25 to November 25, 2022. Simple random and purposive sampling techniques were used to select participants for the quantitative and qualitative studies, respectively. Adherence level was defined as good (adherence score = 1), moderate (0.5 < score <1), and poor (score ⩽0.5). Quantitative data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0. Logistic regression model was used to determine the association. Statistical significance was declared at
resultsThree hundred forty-one patients were included in the quantitative study. Adherence to GDMT was good in 128 (37.5%) of the patients. Patient parameters, including female gender (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.32-0.93), unable to read and write (AOR = 0.31, 95% CI: 0.11-0.86), primary education (AOR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.63), were negatively associated with Physicians' good adherence. Hypertension was associated with lower odds of physicians' good adherence (AOR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21-0.78). Absence of comorbidities (other than hypertension; AOR = 2.65, 95% CI: 1.36-5.15) were positive predictors. System, patient, and physician-related factors were reported as barriers to intensifying GDMT.
conclusionNearly one-fourth of eligible patients were on ⩽50% of guidelines-recommended drugs. Female gender, educational level, and comorbidities were the factors associated with adherence to GDMT. System, patient, and physician-related reasons for poor adherence were identified. Multipronged interventions are required to address those adherence barriers.
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.