Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care

Publication Date:
2018-02-28
Publisher:
BMJ Publishing
Electronic ISSN:
2044-6055
Topics:
Medicine
Keywords:
Open access, General practice / Family practice, Communication
Published by:
http://group.bmj.com/
_version_ 1836398813463445504
autor Liew, S. M., Lee, W. K., Khoo, E. M., Ismail, I. Z., Ambigapathy, S., Omar, M., Suleiman, S. Z., Saaban, J., Mohd Zaidi, N. F., Yusoff, H.
beschreibung Objective Accurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out in primary care clinics in Malaysia in 2014. Patients aged 35 years and above without known cardiovascular disease (CVDs) were included. Face-to-face interviews with a structured questionnaire were used to collect sociodemographic and clinical data as well as patients’ perception and doctors’ estimate of the patients’ CVD risk. Associations were tested using 2 , correlation and independent t-tests. Results We recruited 1094 patients and 57 doctors. Using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) alone, 508 patients (46.4%) were in the high-risk group. When diabetes was included as high risk, the number increased to 776 (70.9%). Only 34.4% of patients and 55.7% of doctors correctly estimated the patient’s CVD risk in comparison with the reference FRS. Of the high-risk patients, 664 (85.6%) underestimated their CV risk. Factors associated with underestimation by patients included not having family history of CVD (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.705, 95% CI 1.538 to 4.757), smaller waist circumference (AOR: 0.979,95% CI 0.960 to 0.999) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (indigenous/others: AOR: 0.129, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.235). Doctors underestimated risk in 59.8% of the high-risk group. Factors associated with underestimation by doctors were patients factors such as being female (AOR: 2.232, 95% CI 1.460 to 3.410), younger age (AOR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.886 to 0.930), non-hypertensive (AOR: 1.731, 95% CI 1.067 to 2.808), non-diabetic (AOR: 1.931, 95% CI 1.114 to 3.348), higher high-density lipoprotein levels (AOR: 3.546, 95% CI 2.025 to 6.209), lower systolic blood pressure (AOR: 0.970, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.982), non-smoker (AOR: 2.246, 95% CI 1.354 to 3.726) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (Indian: AOR: 0.430, 95% CI 0.257 to 0.720; indigenous/others: AOR: 2.498, 95% CI 1.346 to 4.636). Conclusions The majority of consultations occurring between doctors and patients are being informed by inaccurate cardiovascular risk estimation.
citation_standardnr 6176844
datenlieferant ipn_articles
feed_id 151627
feed_publisher BMJ Publishing
feed_publisher_url http://group.bmj.com/
insertion_date 2018-02-28
journaleissn 2044-6055
publikationsjahr_anzeige 2018
publikationsjahr_facette 2018
publikationsjahr_intervall 7984:2015-2019
publikationsjahr_sort 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing
quelle BMJ Open
relation http://bmjopen.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/8/2/e017711?rss=1
schlagwort Open access, General practice / Family practice, Communication
search_space articles
shingle_author_1 Liew, S. M., Lee, W. K., Khoo, E. M., Ismail, I. Z., Ambigapathy, S., Omar, M., Suleiman, S. Z., Saaban, J., Mohd Zaidi, N. F., Yusoff, H.
shingle_author_2 Liew, S. M., Lee, W. K., Khoo, E. M., Ismail, I. Z., Ambigapathy, S., Omar, M., Suleiman, S. Z., Saaban, J., Mohd Zaidi, N. F., Yusoff, H.
shingle_author_3 Liew, S. M., Lee, W. K., Khoo, E. M., Ismail, I. Z., Ambigapathy, S., Omar, M., Suleiman, S. Z., Saaban, J., Mohd Zaidi, N. F., Yusoff, H.
shingle_author_4 Liew, S. M., Lee, W. K., Khoo, E. M., Ismail, I. Z., Ambigapathy, S., Omar, M., Suleiman, S. Z., Saaban, J., Mohd Zaidi, N. F., Yusoff, H.
shingle_catch_all_1 Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care
Open access, General practice / Family practice, Communication
Objective Accurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out in primary care clinics in Malaysia in 2014. Patients aged 35 years and above without known cardiovascular disease (CVDs) were included. Face-to-face interviews with a structured questionnaire were used to collect sociodemographic and clinical data as well as patients’ perception and doctors’ estimate of the patients’ CVD risk. Associations were tested using 2 , correlation and independent t-tests. Results We recruited 1094 patients and 57 doctors. Using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) alone, 508 patients (46.4%) were in the high-risk group. When diabetes was included as high risk, the number increased to 776 (70.9%). Only 34.4% of patients and 55.7% of doctors correctly estimated the patient’s CVD risk in comparison with the reference FRS. Of the high-risk patients, 664 (85.6%) underestimated their CV risk. Factors associated with underestimation by patients included not having family history of CVD (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.705, 95% CI 1.538 to 4.757), smaller waist circumference (AOR: 0.979,95% CI 0.960 to 0.999) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (indigenous/others: AOR: 0.129, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.235). Doctors underestimated risk in 59.8% of the high-risk group. Factors associated with underestimation by doctors were patients factors such as being female (AOR: 2.232, 95% CI 1.460 to 3.410), younger age (AOR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.886 to 0.930), non-hypertensive (AOR: 1.731, 95% CI 1.067 to 2.808), non-diabetic (AOR: 1.931, 95% CI 1.114 to 3.348), higher high-density lipoprotein levels (AOR: 3.546, 95% CI 2.025 to 6.209), lower systolic blood pressure (AOR: 0.970, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.982), non-smoker (AOR: 2.246, 95% CI 1.354 to 3.726) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (Indian: AOR: 0.430, 95% CI 0.257 to 0.720; indigenous/others: AOR: 2.498, 95% CI 1.346 to 4.636). Conclusions The majority of consultations occurring between doctors and patients are being informed by inaccurate cardiovascular risk estimation.
Liew, S. M., Lee, W. K., Khoo, E. M., Ismail, I. Z., Ambigapathy, S., Omar, M., Suleiman, S. Z., Saaban, J., Mohd Zaidi, N. F., Yusoff, H.
BMJ Publishing
2044-6055
20446055
shingle_catch_all_2 Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care
Open access, General practice / Family practice, Communication
Objective Accurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out in primary care clinics in Malaysia in 2014. Patients aged 35 years and above without known cardiovascular disease (CVDs) were included. Face-to-face interviews with a structured questionnaire were used to collect sociodemographic and clinical data as well as patients’ perception and doctors’ estimate of the patients’ CVD risk. Associations were tested using 2 , correlation and independent t-tests. Results We recruited 1094 patients and 57 doctors. Using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) alone, 508 patients (46.4%) were in the high-risk group. When diabetes was included as high risk, the number increased to 776 (70.9%). Only 34.4% of patients and 55.7% of doctors correctly estimated the patient’s CVD risk in comparison with the reference FRS. Of the high-risk patients, 664 (85.6%) underestimated their CV risk. Factors associated with underestimation by patients included not having family history of CVD (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.705, 95% CI 1.538 to 4.757), smaller waist circumference (AOR: 0.979,95% CI 0.960 to 0.999) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (indigenous/others: AOR: 0.129, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.235). Doctors underestimated risk in 59.8% of the high-risk group. Factors associated with underestimation by doctors were patients factors such as being female (AOR: 2.232, 95% CI 1.460 to 3.410), younger age (AOR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.886 to 0.930), non-hypertensive (AOR: 1.731, 95% CI 1.067 to 2.808), non-diabetic (AOR: 1.931, 95% CI 1.114 to 3.348), higher high-density lipoprotein levels (AOR: 3.546, 95% CI 2.025 to 6.209), lower systolic blood pressure (AOR: 0.970, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.982), non-smoker (AOR: 2.246, 95% CI 1.354 to 3.726) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (Indian: AOR: 0.430, 95% CI 0.257 to 0.720; indigenous/others: AOR: 2.498, 95% CI 1.346 to 4.636). Conclusions The majority of consultations occurring between doctors and patients are being informed by inaccurate cardiovascular risk estimation.
Liew, S. M., Lee, W. K., Khoo, E. M., Ismail, I. Z., Ambigapathy, S., Omar, M., Suleiman, S. Z., Saaban, J., Mohd Zaidi, N. F., Yusoff, H.
BMJ Publishing
2044-6055
20446055
shingle_catch_all_3 Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care
Open access, General practice / Family practice, Communication
Objective Accurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out in primary care clinics in Malaysia in 2014. Patients aged 35 years and above without known cardiovascular disease (CVDs) were included. Face-to-face interviews with a structured questionnaire were used to collect sociodemographic and clinical data as well as patients’ perception and doctors’ estimate of the patients’ CVD risk. Associations were tested using 2 , correlation and independent t-tests. Results We recruited 1094 patients and 57 doctors. Using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) alone, 508 patients (46.4%) were in the high-risk group. When diabetes was included as high risk, the number increased to 776 (70.9%). Only 34.4% of patients and 55.7% of doctors correctly estimated the patient’s CVD risk in comparison with the reference FRS. Of the high-risk patients, 664 (85.6%) underestimated their CV risk. Factors associated with underestimation by patients included not having family history of CVD (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.705, 95% CI 1.538 to 4.757), smaller waist circumference (AOR: 0.979,95% CI 0.960 to 0.999) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (indigenous/others: AOR: 0.129, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.235). Doctors underestimated risk in 59.8% of the high-risk group. Factors associated with underestimation by doctors were patients factors such as being female (AOR: 2.232, 95% CI 1.460 to 3.410), younger age (AOR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.886 to 0.930), non-hypertensive (AOR: 1.731, 95% CI 1.067 to 2.808), non-diabetic (AOR: 1.931, 95% CI 1.114 to 3.348), higher high-density lipoprotein levels (AOR: 3.546, 95% CI 2.025 to 6.209), lower systolic blood pressure (AOR: 0.970, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.982), non-smoker (AOR: 2.246, 95% CI 1.354 to 3.726) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (Indian: AOR: 0.430, 95% CI 0.257 to 0.720; indigenous/others: AOR: 2.498, 95% CI 1.346 to 4.636). Conclusions The majority of consultations occurring between doctors and patients are being informed by inaccurate cardiovascular risk estimation.
Liew, S. M., Lee, W. K., Khoo, E. M., Ismail, I. Z., Ambigapathy, S., Omar, M., Suleiman, S. Z., Saaban, J., Mohd Zaidi, N. F., Yusoff, H.
BMJ Publishing
2044-6055
20446055
shingle_catch_all_4 Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care
Open access, General practice / Family practice, Communication
Objective Accurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out in primary care clinics in Malaysia in 2014. Patients aged 35 years and above without known cardiovascular disease (CVDs) were included. Face-to-face interviews with a structured questionnaire were used to collect sociodemographic and clinical data as well as patients’ perception and doctors’ estimate of the patients’ CVD risk. Associations were tested using 2 , correlation and independent t-tests. Results We recruited 1094 patients and 57 doctors. Using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) alone, 508 patients (46.4%) were in the high-risk group. When diabetes was included as high risk, the number increased to 776 (70.9%). Only 34.4% of patients and 55.7% of doctors correctly estimated the patient’s CVD risk in comparison with the reference FRS. Of the high-risk patients, 664 (85.6%) underestimated their CV risk. Factors associated with underestimation by patients included not having family history of CVD (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.705, 95% CI 1.538 to 4.757), smaller waist circumference (AOR: 0.979,95% CI 0.960 to 0.999) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (indigenous/others: AOR: 0.129, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.235). Doctors underestimated risk in 59.8% of the high-risk group. Factors associated with underestimation by doctors were patients factors such as being female (AOR: 2.232, 95% CI 1.460 to 3.410), younger age (AOR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.886 to 0.930), non-hypertensive (AOR: 1.731, 95% CI 1.067 to 2.808), non-diabetic (AOR: 1.931, 95% CI 1.114 to 3.348), higher high-density lipoprotein levels (AOR: 3.546, 95% CI 2.025 to 6.209), lower systolic blood pressure (AOR: 0.970, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.982), non-smoker (AOR: 2.246, 95% CI 1.354 to 3.726) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (Indian: AOR: 0.430, 95% CI 0.257 to 0.720; indigenous/others: AOR: 2.498, 95% CI 1.346 to 4.636). Conclusions The majority of consultations occurring between doctors and patients are being informed by inaccurate cardiovascular risk estimation.
Liew, S. M., Lee, W. K., Khoo, E. M., Ismail, I. Z., Ambigapathy, S., Omar, M., Suleiman, S. Z., Saaban, J., Mohd Zaidi, N. F., Yusoff, H.
BMJ Publishing
2044-6055
20446055
shingle_title_1 Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care
shingle_title_2 Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care
shingle_title_3 Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care
shingle_title_4 Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care
timestamp 2025-06-30T23:33:02.078Z
titel Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care
titel_suche Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care
topic WW-YZ
uid ipn_articles_6176844