ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
A multi-method study on GPs' perspectives on Lipoprotein(a) as an actionable cardiovascular risk factor.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Elevated Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a common hypercholesterolaemia disorder that requires continuity of care from primary care doctors, yet elevated Lp(a) is a highly neglected condition globally. Here, we aimed to explore general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives and practices on the detection and management of elevated Lp(a) and to assess the impact of LILAC-for-Lp(a) training on GPs' confidence in managing Lp(a). Methods: A total of 18 general practitioners (GPs) participated in the focus group discussions. Pre- and post-education questionnaires were administered to 50 GPs to assess changes in perceptions after education. Results: The median age of the focus group participants was 55 years, and 33% were women. Only two GPs were routinely testing for Lp(a) in patients at high cardiovascular risk. The analysis generated eight categories under four themes: (i) current context, (ii) patient selection for testing, (iii) barriers and enablers, and (iv) patient acceptance of testing. Although the GPs agreed that elevated Lp(a) levels should ideally be included in routine cardiovascular risk assessment, the critical barriers to integrating Lp(a) testing were the absence of nationally approved management pathways, out-of-pocket costs, low public awareness, and major knowledge gaps among healthcare providers. Key strategies include improving training and launching a national implementation programme with cost subsidies. Pre- and post-forum questionnaires collected from 50 GPs showed that the LILAC-for-Lp(a) educational framework had positively changed their perspectives on testing Lp(a) and improved their confidence in managing Lp(a) ( Conclusion: In conclusion, the barriers to testing and managing Lp(a) among GPs include an unclear management pathway and insufficient training. However, the LILAC-for- Lp(a) educational framework helped shift the GPs' mindsets positively.
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.