| 1. |
- Hanschmidt, Franz, et al.
(författare)
-
Barriers to Alcohol Screening Among Hypertensive Patients and the Role of Stigma : Lessons for the Implementation of Screening and Brief Interventions in European Primary Care Settings
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Alcohol and Alcoholism. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0735-0414 .- 1464-3502. ; 52:2, s. 572-579
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims1. To quantify barriers to alcohol screening among hypertensive patients reported by primary healthcare professionals. 2. To examine whether education and screening frequency measures are associated with stigma-related barriers.MethodsA web survey was conducted among 3081 primary healthcare professionals from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Participants were asked about perceived barriers to alcohol screening as free-text response. The replies were independently categorized by two raters. Stigma-related barriers were predicted by logistic regressions with education, knowledge on alcohol as risk factor and frequency of alcohol screening.ResultsIn France and Italy, almost half of the reported barriers were stigma-related, whereas time constraints were cited most commonly in Spain and the UK. In Germany, nearly half of respondents rated the importance of alcohol screening for hypertension as low. Perception that regular screening is inappropriate or associated with too much effort, beliefs that screening is unnecessary, and insufficient knowledge of screening tools were cited as further barriers. Professional education on alcohol use was consistently rated to be poorer than the equivalent education on hypertension, and only a minority of respondents perceived alcohol as important risk factor for hypertension. Stigma-related barriers could not be significantly predicted by education, knowledge or screening frequency in most models.ConclusionsOverall, regular alcohol screening among hypertensive patients seems to be widely accepted, but further education (Germany) and structural support (Spain, UK) could contribute to increase screening rates. In France and Italy, screening uptake could be improved by addressing stigma.Short SummaryAlcohol screening among hypertensive patients was largely accepted among general practitioners from five different European countries. Reported screening barriers varied between countries and included time constraints, stigma and underrated importance of alcohol. Results did not indicate a positive impact of education and screening frequency on perception of stigma as barrier to screening.
|
|
| 2. |
- Lettino, Maddalena, et al.
(författare)
-
Diabetic patients with acute coronary syndromes in contemporary European registries : Characteristics and outcomes
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2055-6837 .- 2055-6845. ; 3:4, s. 198-213
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Among patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), those with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at particularly high risk of recurrent cardiovascular events and premature death. We aimed to provide a descriptive overview of unadjusted analyses of patient characteristics, ACS management, and outcomes up to 1 year after hospital admission for an ACS/index-ACS event, in patients with DM in contemporary registries in Europe. Methods and results A total of 10 registries provided data in a systematic manner on ACS patients with DM (total n =28 899), and without DM (total n= 97 505). In the DM population, the proportion of patients with ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) ranged from 22.1% to 64.6% (other patients had non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (NSTEMI-ACS) or unstable angina). All-cause mortality in the registries ranged from 1.4% to 9.4% in-hospital; 2.8% to 7.9% at 30 days post-discharge; 5.1% to 10.7% at 180 days post-discharge; and 3.3% to 10.5% at 1 year post-discharge. Major bleeding events were reported in up to 3.8% of patients while in hospital (8 registries); up to 1.3% at 30 days (data from two registries only), and 2.0% at 1 year (one registry only). Registries differed substantially in terms of study setting, site, patient selection, definition and schedule of endpoints, and use of various P2Y12 inhibitors. In most, but not all, registries, event rates in DM patients were higher than in patients without DM. Pooled risk ratios comparing cohorts with DM vs. no DM were in-hospital significantly higher in DM for all-cause death (1.66; 95% CI 1.42-1.94), for cardiovascular death (2.33; 1.78 - 3.03), and for major bleeding (1.35; 1.21-1.52). Conclusion These registry data from real-life clinical practice confirm a high risk for recurrent events among DM patients with ACS, with great variation across the different registries.
|
|
