Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 100, Issue 2, pp 140–144 | Cite as

Adoption of the Healthy Heart Kit by Alberta Family Physicians

  • Raphaël Bize
  • Ronald C. Plotnikoff
  • Shannon D. Scott
  • Nandini Karunamuni
  • Wendy Rodgers
Quantitative Research

Abstract

Objective

The Healthy Heart Kit (HHK) is a risk management and patient education kit for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and the promotion of CV health. There are currently no published data examining predictors of HHK use by physicians. The main objective of this study was to examine the association between physicians’ characteristics (socio-demographic, cognitive, and behavioural) and the use of the HHK.

Methods

All registered family physicians in Alberta (n=3068) were invited to participate in the “Healthy Heart Kit” Study. Consenting physicians (n=153) received the Kit and were requested to use it for two months. At the end of this period, a questionnaire collected data on the frequency of Kit use by physicians, as well as socio-demographic, cognitive, and behavioural variables pertaining to the physicians.

Results

The questionnaire was returned by 115 physicians (follow-up rate = 75%). On a scale ranging from 0 to 100, the mean score of Kit use was 61 [SD=26]. A multiple linear regression showed that “agreement with the Kit” and the degree of “confidence in using the Kit” was strongly associated with Kit use, explaining 46% of the variability for Kit use. Time since graduation was inversely associated with Kit use, and a trend was observed for smaller practices to be associated with lower use.

Conclusion

Given these findings, future research and practice should explore innovative strategies to gain initial agreement among physicians to employ such clinical tools. Participation of older physicians and solo-practitioners in this process should be emphasized.

Key words

Cardiovascular medicine clinical practice guidelines evidence based medicine family medicine primary care 

Résumé

Objectif

La trousse Coeur en santé est une trousse de gestion des risques et d’éducation des patients pour la prévention des maladies cardiovasculaires et la promotion de la santé cardiovasculaire. Actuellement, il n’existe aucune donnée publiée examinant les indicateurs prévisionnels pour l’utilisation de la trousse Coeur en santé par les médecins. Le principal objectif de cette étude est d’examiner l’association entre les caractéristiques des médecins (sociodémographiques, cognitives et comportementales) et l’utilisation de la trousse.

Méthode

Tous les médecins de famille de l’Alberta (n=3068) ont été invités à participer à l’étude sur la «trousse Coeur en santé». Les médecins consentants (n=153) ont reçu la trousse et on leur a demandé de l’utiliser pendant deux mois. À la fin de cette période, un questionnaire a permis de recueillir les données sur la fréquence de l’utilisation de la trousse par les médecins, ainsi que les variables sociodémographiques, cognitives et comportementales relatives aux médecins.

Résultats

Le questionnaire a été retourné par 115 médecins (taux de suivi = 75 %). Sur une échelle allant de 0 à 100, la note moyenne pour l’utilisation de la trousse était de 61 [écart type=26]. Une régression linéaire multiple a démontré que «le consentement à utiliser la trousse» et le degré de «confiance dans l’utilisation de la trousse» étaient fortement associés à l’utilisation de la trousse, ce qui explique 46 % de la variabilité de l’utilisation de la trousse. Le temps écoulé depuis l’obtention du diplôme était inversement associé à l’utilisation de la trousse, et on a observé une tendance pour les plus petits cabinets associés à une utilisation moins fréquente.

Conclusion

Étant donné ces résultats, les prochaines recherches et les prochains exercices devraient examiner des stratégies innovatrices pour obtenir l’accord initial parmi les médecins d’employer de tels outils cliniques. La participation des médecins plus âgés et des médecins exerçant seuls à ce processus devrait être mise en évidence.

Mots clés

médecine cardiovasculaire lignes directrices sur les pratiques cliniques médecine fondée sur des preuves médecine de famille soins primaires 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Health Canada. The Growing Burden of Heart Disease and Stroke in Canada. 2003. Ottawa: Health Canada, 2003. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.cvdinfobase.ca/cvdbook/ (Accessed December 14, 2007).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith HE, Herbert CP. Preventive practice among primary care physicians in British Columbia: Relation to recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. CMAJ 1993;149:1795–800.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick-Pierre K, Vayda E, Enkin MW, Hannah WJ. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 1989;321:1306–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith ER. The Healthy Heart Kit. Can J Cardiol 1999;15(3):349,351-52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hyman DJ, Pavlik VN, Taylor WC, Goodrick GK, Moye L. Simultaneous vs. sequential counseling for multiple behavior change. Arch Intern Med 2007;167:1152–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McClaran J, Kaufman D, Toombs M, Beardall S, Levy I, Chockalingam A. From death and disability to patient empowerment: An interprofessional partnership to achieve cardiovascular health in Canada. Can J Public Health 2001;92:I3–I9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaufman DM, McClaran J, Toombs M, Beardall S, Levy I, Chockalingam A. Achieving cardiovascular health through continuing interprofessional development. Can J Public Health 2001;92:I10–I16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lopez-de-Munain J, Torcal J, Lopez V, Garay J. Prevention in routine general practice: Activity patterns and potential promoting factors. Prev Med 2001;32:13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kopelow ML, Schnabl GK, Hassard TH, Tamblyn RM, Klass DJ, Beazley G, et al. Assessing practicing physicians in two settings using standardized patients. Acad Med 1992;67:S19–S21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tsuyuki RT, Koshman S, Pearson GJ. Guidelines for Management of Modifiable Risk Factors in Adults at High Risk for Cardiovascular Events. Alberta Medical Association, 2005. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.topalbertadoctors.org/NR/rdonlyres/A548C784-8630-45C8-9220-30D5C1926875/0/cardiovascular_guideline.pdf (Accessed August 16, 2007).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ajzen I. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckman J (Eds.), Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior. Heidelberg: Springer, 1985;11–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bandura A. Self-Efficacy Theory. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cuzick J. A Wilcoxon-type test for trend. Stat Med 1985;4:87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hosmer DW, Jr, Lemeshow S. Stepwise Logistic Regression. Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2000;116–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pierce M. Doing research in general practice: Advice for the uninitiated. Diabet Med 1998;15:S25–S28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sin DD, Man SF, Cowie RL, Sharpe HM, Andrews EM, Bell NK, et al. Recruitment for a provincial asthma study. Participation of network and nonnetwork primary care physicians. Can Fam Phys 2004;50:1251–54.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Choudhry NK, Fletcher RH, Soumerai SB. Systematic review: The relationship between clinical experience and quality of health care. Ann Intern Med 2005;142:260–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levinson W, Dull VT, Roter DL, Chaumeton N, Frankel R. Recruiting physicians for office-based research. Med Care 1998;36:934–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Asch S, Connor SE, Hamilton EG, Fox SA. Problems in recruiting communitybased physicians for health services research. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:591–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    The College of Family Physicians of Canada. The National Family Physician Workforce Survey (NFPWS) 2001;2001. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.cfpc.ca/English/cfpc/research/janus%20project/nfpws/default.asp?s=1 (Accessed December 14, 2007).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphaël Bize
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ronald C. Plotnikoff
    • 1
    • 3
  • Shannon D. Scott
    • 1
    • 4
  • Nandini Karunamuni
    • 1
  • Wendy Rodgers
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Health Promotion Studies, School of Public HealthUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.Department of Ambulatory Care and Community MedicineUniversity of LausanneSwitzerland
  3. 3.Faculty of Physical Education and RecreationUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  4. 4.Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations