Patient and healthcare provider barriers to hypertension awareness, treatment and follow up: a systematic review and meta-analysis of qualitative and quantitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Although the importance of detecting, treating, and controlling hypertension has been recognized for decades, the majority of patients with hypertension remain uncontrolled. The path from evidence to practice contains many potential barriers, but their role has not been reviewed systematically. This review aimed to synthesize and identify important barriers to hypertension control as reported by patients and healthcare providers. METHODS: Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Global Health were searched systematically up to February 2013. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies. Two reviewers categorized barriers based on a theoretical framework of behavior change. The theoretical framework suggests that a change in behavior requires a strong commitment to change [intention], the necessary skills and abilities to adopt the behavior [capability], and an absence of health system and support constraints. FINDINGS: Twenty-five qualitative studies and 44 quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. In qualitative studies, health system barriers were most commonly discussed in studies of patients and health care providers. Quantitative studies identified disagreement with clinical recommendations as the most common barrier among health care providers. Quantitative studies of patients yielded different results: lack of knowledge was the most common barrier to hypertension awareness. Stress, anxiety and depression were most commonly reported as barriers that hindered or delayed adoption of a healthier lifestyle. In terms of hypertension treatment adherence, patients mostly reported forgetting to take their medication. Finally, priority setting barriers were most commonly reported by patients in terms of following up with their health care providers. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified a wide range of barriers facing patients and health care providers pursuing hypertension control, indicating the need for targeted multi-faceted interventions. More methodologically rigorous studies that encompass the range of barriers and that include low- and middle-income countries are required in order to inform policies to improve hypertension control

The influence of progression of atrial fibrillation on quality of life: a report from the Euro Heart Survey.

Aims: Progression of atrial fibrillation (AF) from paroxysmal to persistent forms is an active field of research. The influence of AF progression on health related quality of life (HRQoL) is currently unknown. We aimed to assess the influence of AF progression on HRQoL, and whether this association is mediated through symptoms, treatment, and major adverse events. Methods and results: In the Euro Heart Survey, 967 patients were included with paroxysmal AF who filled out EuroQoL-5D at baseline and at 1 year follow-up. Those who progressed (n = 132, 13.6%) developed more problems during follow-up than those who did not, on all EuroQoL-5D domains (increase in problems on mobility 20.5% vs. 11.4%; self-care 12.9% vs. 6.2%; usual activities 23.5% vs. 14.0%; pain/discomfort 20.5% vs. 13.7%; and anxiety/depression 22.7% vs. 15.7%; all P < 0.05), leading to a decrease in utility [baseline 0.744 ± 0.26, follow-up 0.674 ± 0.36; difference -0.07 (95% CI [-0.126,-0.013], P = 0.02)]. Multivariate analysis showed that the effect of progression on utility is mediated by a large effect of adverse events [stroke (-0.27 (95% CI [-0.43,-0.11]); P = 0.001], heart failure [-0.12 (95% CI [-0.20,-0.05]); P = 0.001], malignancy (-0.31 (95% CI [-0.56,-0.05]); P = 0.02] or implantation of an implantable cardiac defibrillator [-0.12 (95% CI [-0.23,-0.02]); P = 0.03)], as well as symptomatic AF [-0.04 (95% CI [-0.08,-0.01]); P = 0.008]. Conclusion: AF progression is associated with a decrease in HRQoL. However, multivariate analysis revealed that AF progression itself does not have a negative effect on HRQoL, but that this effect can be attributed to a minor effect of the associated symptoms and a major effect of associated adverse events

Structured decision-making drives guidelines panels’ recommendations ‘for’ but not ‘against’ health interventions

Background: The determinants of guideline panels’ recommendations remain uncertain. Objective: To investigate factors considered by members of 8 panels convened by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) to develop guidelines using GRADE system. Study Design and Setting: web-based survey of the participants in the ASH guidelines panels. Analysis: two level hierarchical, random-effect, multivariable regression analysis to explore the relation between GRADE and non-GRADE factors and strength of recommendations (SOR). Results: In the primary analysis, certainty in evidence [OR=1.83; (95CI% 1.45 to 2.31)], balance of benefits and harms [OR=1.49 (95CI% 1.30 to 1.69)] and variability in patients’ values and preferences [OR=1.47 (95CI% 1.15 to 1.88)] proved the strongest predictors of SOR. In a secondary analysis, certainty of evidence was associated with a strong recommendation [OR=3.60 (95% CI 2.16 to 6.00)] when panel members recommended “for” interventions but not when they made recommendations “against” [OR=0.98 (95%CI: 0.57 to 1.8)] consistent with “yes” bias. Agreement between individual members and the group in rating SOR varied (kappa ranged from -0.01 to 0.64). Conclusion: GRADE’s conceptual framework proved, in general, highly associated with SOR. Failure of certainty of evidence to be associated with SOR against an intervention, suggest the need for improvements in the process

Prognosis, disease progression, and treatment of atrial fibrillation patients during 1 year: follow-up of the Euro Heart Survey on Atrial Fibrillation

n/