Cited by 104Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionHealth Policy Implementation Science

Barriers to implementing cardiovascular risk tables in routine general practice

Open access
Steenkiste, Ben van, Weijden, Trudy van der, Stoffers, Henri E. J. H., Grol, Richard·2004·Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care

Abstract

DESIGN: Qualitative study. GPs were interviewed after analysing two audiotaped cardiovascular consultations. SETTING: Primary health care. SUBJECTS: A sample of 15 GPs who audiotaped 22 consultations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Barriers hampering GPs from following the guideline. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after about 13 interviews. The 25 identified barriers were related to the risk table, the GP or to environmental factors. Lack of knowledge and poor communication skills of the GP, along with pressure of work and demanding patients, cause GPs to deviate from the guideline. GPs regard barriers external to themselves as most important. CONCLUSION: Using the risk table as a key element of the high-risk approach in primary prevention encounters many barriers. Merely incorporating risk tables in guidelines is not sufficient for implementation of the guidelines. Time-efficient implementation strategies dealing in particular with the communication and presentation of cardiovascular risk are needed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02813430310004489

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A Dutch qualitative study reported that physicians' knowledge of risk tables and their ability to communicate that knowledge influenced implementation.

    “A Dutch qualitative study of the use of risk tables as a key component of risk assessments for primary prevention reported that physicians' knowledge of the risk tables and ability to communicate that knowledge to the patient influenced their implementation.545”
  • Physicians are concerned about overestimating risk in national populations, which may lead to overuse of medical therapy.

    “Physicians are also concerned about overestimating risk in national populations, which may lead to overuse of medical therapy.545,547”
  • The length of routine patient consultations is widely recognized as a barrier to conducting risk assessments.

    “The length of routine patient consultations, which provides little time for discussion, is widely recognized as a barrier to conducting risk assessments.545,547”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Anonymous. Joint British recommendations on prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice: summary. British Cardiac Society, British Hyperlipidaemia Associa- tion, British Hypertension Society, British Diabetic Asso- ciation. BMJ 2000;320:705 Á/8.
  2. Yarnall K, Pollack KI, Outbid T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Is there enough time for prevention. Am J Public Health 2003;93:635 Á/41.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Steenkiste, B. V., Weijden, T. V. D., Stoffers, H. E. J. H., & Grol, R.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Steenkiste, Ben van
Venue
Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care
Published
2004-03
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
32-37
ISSN
  • 0281-3432 (ISSN-L)
  • 1502-7724
OpenAlex
W1995918858
Cited by
104
References
21
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
8.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
guideline implementation, implementation barriers, general practitioners, cardiovascular risk communication, primary prevention, high-risk approach, occupational stress, patient demand, primary care
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Cardiovascular Diseases, Clinical Competence, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Primary Health Care, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Risk Factors, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment, Guideline Adherence, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review