Implementing cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines to translate evidence-based medicine and shared decision making into general practice: theory-based intervention development, qualitative piloting and quantitative feasibility

Background: The use of cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines based on absolute risk assessment is poor around the world, including Australia. Behavioural barriers amongst GPs and patients include capability (e.g. difficulty communicating/understanding risk) and motivation (e.g. attitudes towards guidelines/medication). This paper outlines the theory-based development of a website for GP guidelines, and piloting of a new risk calculator/decision aid. Methods: Stage 1 involved identifying evidence-based solutions using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework, informed by previous research involving 400 GPs and 600 patients/consumers. Stage 2 co-developed website content with GPs. Stage 3 piloted a prototype website at a national GP conference. Stage 4 iteratively improved the website based on "think aloud" interviews with GPs and patients. Stage 5 was a feasibility study to evaluate potential efficacy (guidelines-based recommendations for each risk category), acceptability (intended use) and demand (actual use over 1 month) amongst GPs (n = 98). Results: Stage 1 identified GPs as the target for behaviour change; the need for a new risk calculator/decision aid linked to existing audit and feedback training; and online guidelines as a delivery format. Stage 2-4 iteratively improved content and format based on qualitative feedback from GP and patient user testing over three rounds of website development. Stage 5 suggested potential efficacy with improved identification of hypothetical high risk patients (from 26 to 76%) and recommended medication (from 57 to 86%) after viewing the website (n = 42), but prescribing to low risk patients remained similar (from 19 to 22%; n = 37). Most GPs (89%) indicated they would use the website in the next month, and 72% reported using it again after one month (n = 98). Open feedback identified implementation barriers including a need for integration with medical software, low health literacy resources and pre-consultation assessment. Conclusions: Following a theory-based development process and user co-design, the resulting intervention was acceptable to GPs with high intentions for use, improved identification of patient risk categories and more guidelines-based prescribing intentions for high risk but not low risk patients. The effectiveness of linking the intervention to clinical practice more closely to address implementation barriers will be evaluated in future research

Heuristics and biases in cardiovascular disease prevention:How can we improve communication about risk, benefits and harms?

Objective Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines recommend medication based on the probability of a heart attack/stroke in the next 5–10 years. However, heuristics and biases make risk communication challenging for doctors. This study explored how patients interpret personalised CVD risk results presented in varying formats and timeframes. Methods GPs recruited 25 patients with CVD risk factors and varying medication history. Participants were asked to ‘think aloud’ while using two CVD risk calculators that present probabilistic risk in different ways, within a semi-structured interview. Transcribed audio-recordings were coded using Framework Analysis. Results Key themes were: 1) numbers lack meaning without a reference point; 2) risk results need to be both credible and novel; 3) selective attention to intervention effects. Risk categories (low/moderate/high) provided meaningful context, but short-term risk results were not credible if they didn’t match expectations. Colour-coded icon arrays showing the effect of age and interventions were seen as novel and motivating. Those on medication focused on benefits, while others focused on harms. Conclusion CVD risk formats need to be tailored to patient expectations and experiences in order to counteract heuristics and biases. Practice implications Doctors need access to multiple CVD risk formats to communicate effectively about CVD prevention

Communication Experiences in Primary Healthcare with Refugees and Asylum Seekers: A Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis.

Refugee and asylum seeker population numbers are rising in Western countries. Understanding the communication experiences, within healthcare encounters, for this population is important for providing better care and health outcomes. This review summarizes the literature on health consultation communication experiences of refugees and asylum seekers living in Western countries. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to 31 March 2019. Studies were included if they aimed to improve, assess or report on communication/interaction in the primary health care consultation setting with refugees or asylum seekers, and were conducted in Western countries. A narrative synthesis of the literature was undertaken. Thematic analysis of the 21 included articles, showed that refugees and asylum seekers experience a range of communication challenges and obstacles in primary care consultations. This included practical and relational challenges of organizing and using informal and formal interpreters and cultural understanding of illness and healthcare. Non-verbal and compassionate care aspects of communication emerged as an important factor in helping improve comfort and trust between healthcare providers (HCP) and refugees and asylum seekers during a healthcare encounter. Improvements at the systems level are needed to provide better access to professional interpreters, but also support compassionate and humanistic care by creating time for HCPs to build relationships and trust with patients

Can consumers learn to ask three questions to improve shared decision making? A feasibility study of the ASK (AskShareKnow) Patient–Clinician Communication Model® intervention in a primary health-care setting

Funded by Informed Medical Decisions Foundation. Grant Number: #0175-1 National Health and Medical Research Council Public Health Training Fellowship. Grant Number: 568962Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Current guidance for communicating with refugee and asylum seeker patients: An environmental scan of online resources.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Primary healthcare practitioners (PHPs) are often the first point of care for people seeking refuge or asylum in Australia. Communication plays a vital part in their care. The aim of this study was to identify, appraise and synthesise online resources that aim to support communication during consultations with these patients. METHOD: A systematic environmental scan of online Australian resources, using the Google search engine, was conducted. The resources were appraised and rated using a validated purpose taxonomy as well as the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials to determine understandability and actionability. RESULTS: A total of 32 unique resources were identified. On average, the resources scored better on understandability (mean 64%) than actionability (mean 49%). The resources each had between two and five purpose taxonomy types, and the proportion of the content relevant to communication ranged from 5% to 100%. DISCUSSION: There are multiple resources available to PHPs to improve their communication with refugee and asylum seeker patients. Those that were rated better overall identified the population group and had practical suggestions to help operationalise their content. This article synthesises the online resources with practical suggestions regarding continuity of care, language barriers and PHPs' responsiveness to individual and cultural considerations

Exploring the expectations, experiences and tensions of refugee patients and general practitioners in the quality of care in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Refugees and asylum seekers arrive in the Australian community with complex health needs and expectations of healthcare systems formed from elsewhere. Navigating the primary healthcare system can be challenging with communication and language barriers. In multicultural societies, this obstacle may be removed by accessing language-concordant care. Emerging evidence suggests language-concordance is associated with more positive reports of patient experience. Whether this is true for refugees and asylum seekers and their expectation of markers of quality patient-centred care (PCC) remains to be explored. This study aimed to explore the expectations around the markers of PCC and the impacts of having language-concordant care in Australian primary healthcare. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured individual in-language (Arabic, Dari, and Tamil) remote interviews with 22 refugee and asylum seekers and 9 general practitioners (GPs). Interview transcripts were coded inductively and deductively, based on the research questions, using Thematic Analysis. Extensive debriefing and discussion took place within the research team throughout data collection and analysis. RESULTS: Community member expectations of markers of PCC are constantly evolving and adapting based on invisible and visible actions during clinical encounters. Challenges can occur in the clinical encounter when expectations are 'unsaid' or unarticulated by both community members and GPs due to the assumption of shared understanding with language concordant care. Expectations of what constitutes satisfactory, quality PCC are dynamic outcomes, which are influenced by prior and current experiences of healthcare. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of understanding that language concordant care does not always support aligned expectations of the markers of quality PCC between community members and their GP. We recommend that GPs encourage community members to provide explicit descriptions about how their prior experiences have framed their expectations of what characterizes quality PCC. In addition, GPs could develop a collaborative approach, in which they explain their own decision-making processes in providing PCC to refugees and asylum seekers. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Bilingual researchers from multicultural backgrounds and experience working with people from refugee backgrounds were consulted on study design and analysis. This study included individuals with lived experiences as refugees and asylum seekers and clinicians as participants