Factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care: a mixed-method systematic review

Author:

Muthee Tonny B.ORCID,Kimathi Derick,Richards Georgia C.,Etyang Anthony,Nunan David,Williams Veronika,Heneghan Carl

Abstract

Abstract Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) such as ischemic heart disease and stroke is the leading causes of death and disability globally with a growing burden in low and middle-income countries. A credible way of managing the incidence and prevalence of cardiovascular diseases is by reducing risk factors. This understanding has led to the development and recommendation for the clinical use of cardiovascular risk stratification tools. These tools enhance clinical decision-making. However, there is a lag in the implementation of these tools in most countries. This systematic review seeks to synthesise the current knowledge of the factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring in primary care settings. Methods We searched bibliographic databases and grey literature for studies of any design relating to the topic. Titles, abstracts and full texts were independently assessed for eligibility by two reviewers. This was followed by quality assessment and data extraction. We analysed data using an integrated and best fit framework synthesis approach to identify these factors. Quantitative and qualitative forms of data were combined into a single mixed-methods synthesis. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as the guiding tool and template for this analysis. Results Twenty-five studies (cross-sectional n = 12, qualitative n = 9 and mixed-methods n = 4) were included in this review. Twenty (80%) of these were conducted in high-income countries. Only four studies (16%) included patients as participants. This review reports on a total of eleven cardiovascular risk stratification tools. The factors influencing the implementation of cardiovascular risk scoring are related to clinical setting and healthcare system (resources, priorities, practice culture and organisation), users (attributes and interactions between users) and the specific cardiovascular risk tool (characteristics, perceived role and effectiveness). Conclusions While these findings bolster the understanding of implementation complexity, there exists limited research in the context of low and middle-income countries. Notwithstanding the need to direct resources in bridging this gap, it is also crucial that these efforts are in concert with providing high-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness of using cardiovascular risk scoring to improve cardiovascular disease outcomes of mortality and morbidity. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018092679.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Informatics,Health Policy,General Medicine

Reference111 articles.

1. Collins DRJ, Tompson AC, Onakpoya IJ, Roberts N, Ward AM, Heneghan CJ. Global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: systematic review of systematic reviews. BMJ Open [Internet]. 2017 Mar 24 [cited 2017 Dec 10];7(3):e013650. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28341688.

2. Ford ES. Risks for All-Cause Mortality, Cardiovascular Disease, and Diabetes associated with the metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Care [Internet]. 2005 [cited 2017 Jun 16];28(7). Available from: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/28/7/1769.short.

3. Johnston SC, Mendis S, Mathers CD. Global variation in stroke burden and mortality: estimates from monitoring, surveillance, and modelling. Lancet Neurol [Internet]. 2009;8(4):345–54. Available from:. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(09)70023-7.

4. Mensah GAG, Roth GAG, Sampson UKU, Moran AAE, Feigin VVL, Forouzanfar MMH, et al. Mortality from cardiovascular diseases in sub-Saharan Africa, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis of data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013: cardiovascular topic. Cardiovasc J Afr [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2017 Nov 20];26(2):S6–10. Available from: http://www.cvja.co.za/onlinejournal/vol26/vol26_issue2_supplement/#8/z.

5. WHO. A prioritised research agenda for prevention and control of NCDs: CVD, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes. WHO Website [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2018 Jan 10];58. Available from: http://www.who.int/cardiovascular_diseases/publications/ncd_agenda2011/en/.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3