PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Benoit Boland

Publications and source records attributed to Benoit Boland.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Randomised evaluation of a specific training of general practitioners in cardiovascular prevention.

OBJECTIVE: A lack of global cardiovascular (CV) risk approach is often observed in the clinical practice. Having conceived a clinical strategy aimed at helping general practitioners (GPs) to assess and manage global CV risk in the daily practice, we wanted to evaluate the impact of a training promoting this strategy. METHODS: Randomised controlled trial involving GPs registered in a continual medical education (CME) group. The intervention and control arms included 7 (123 GPs) and 13 (220 GPs) groups, respectively. The intervention was a training in CV prevention provided during a CME meeting. GPs answered a questionnaire four months after the training. The main outcome was the use of a global CV risk assessment tool. Secondary outcomes were the GPs' awareness of the CV diseases burden, knowledge of the CV risk factors, and CV therapeutic attitudes. RESULTS: More trained GPs (76% vs. 52%) used a global CV risk assessment tool (p = 0.003). Significant differences were also observed for secondary outcomes: (a) awareness of CV diseases burden: more trained GPs were aware of the lethality from myocardial infarction (37% vs. 21%, p = 0.047) and considered it as the main cause of sudden death in adults (78% vs. 59%, p = 0.018); (b) knowledge of risk factors: more trained GPs considered familial CV history (89% vs. 73%, p = 0.021) and HDL-cholesterol (82% vs. 62%, p = 0.013) as important CV risk factors; (c) therapeutic attitudes: fewer trained GPs used to prescribe a lipid-lowering drug based on a total cholesterol value without considering the other risk factors (44% vs. 65%, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: The global CV risk approach in the general practice was favourably influenced by this training provided during a CME meeting. The impact of the training on patients' outcomes should be addressed in a prospective trial.

Cardiovascular Diseases↗

Obstacles to cardiovascular prevention in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: In spite of a wide diffusion of the European guidelines for prevention of cardiovascular (CV) diseases, failures in both primary and secondary CV prevention are currently acknowledged. We wanted to uncover obstacles to CV prevention related to the general practitioner's (GP) knowledge and attitudes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A postal questionnaire was sent to a random sample of GPs from two Belgian provinces. 282 GPs (32%) answered the questionnaire. The proportion of adequate answers was calculated for each item. The main obstacles related to three domains. Regarding awareness of CV burden, 83% of the GPs underestimated the lethality of myocardial infarction and 41% underestimated the prevalence of high CV risk in the adult population. Regarding CV risk assessment, 80% thought that total cholesterol (TC) adequately reflected the individual CV risk; only 55% systematically registered the patient's CV risk factors in the medical record. A tool for global CV risk assessment was never used by 53% of the GPs. Regarding CV therapeutic attitudes, 66% systematically prescribed a lipid-lowering drug to patients with high TC while 62% did not take into account the evidence-based therapeutic targets in type 2 diabetic patients. CONCLUSIONS: This survey showed that these GPs underestimated the CV burden, lacked a systematic approach to global risk assessment and used to focus on cholesterol treatment rather than on global CV risk management.

Awareness↗

Cardiovascular prevention in general practice: development and validation of an algorithm.

OBJECTIVE: General practice visits are a unique opportunity to identify and treat individuals with a high cardiovascular (CV) risk. However, a case-finding strategy suited to the daily general practice is not provided in the CV prevention guidelines. We wanted to create, validate and test an algorithm for global CV risk assessment and management. METHODS: The algorithm was 1) developed based on evidence from epidemiological studies and clinical trials, 2) validated in a population-based cohort and 3) tested by randomly selected general practitioners (GPs) who rated its usefulness and applicability. RESULTS: 1) Screening for seven clinical risk factors (RF) allowed a quick classification of patients in four CV risk typologies: obvious high risk (previous CV event and/or type 2 diabetes) in 17%, obvious low risk (no RF) in 14%, smoking-related risk (single RF) in 6%, or undetermined risk (any other RF) to further evaluate in 63% patients. Inter-physician reproducibility for risk prediction was excellent. Overall, predicted risk was high, moderate and low in 25, 17 and 58% of the patients, respectively. 2) These risk predictions were validated in a cohort of 962 men followed over 10 years. 3) Most GPs reported that the algorithm was applicable and useful, while half of them started using it frequently in their daily practice. CONCLUSION: This algorithm is a new, pragmatic and evidence-based strategy for systematic and global CV risk management. It was validated at the population level, and shown to be applicable and useful in the daily general practice.

Adult↗