Patient and Provider Perceptions of Hypertension Treatment: Do They Agree?

"Hypertension is such a difficult disease to manage": federally qualified health center staff- and leadership-perceived readiness to implement a technology-facilitated team-based hypertension model

BACKGROUND

Despite decades of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of hypertension care delivery in reducing morbidity and mortality, a majority of hypertension cases remain uncontrolled. There is an urgent need to elucidate and address multilevel facilitators and barriers clinical staff face in delivering evidence-based hypertension care, patients face in accessing it, and clinical systems face in sustaining it. Through a rigorous pre-implementation evaluation, we aimed to identify facilitators and barriers bearing the potential to affect the planned implementation of a multilevel technology-facilitated hypertension management trial across six primary care sites in a large federally qualified health center (FQHC) in New York City.

METHODS

During a dedicated pre-implementation period (3-9 months/site, 2021-2022), a capacity assessment was conducted by trained practice facilitators, including (1) online anonymous surveys (n = 124; 70.5% of eligible), (2) hypertension training analytics (n = 69; 94.5% of assigned), and (3) audio-recorded semi-structured interviews (n = 67; 48.6% of eligible) with FQHC leadership and staff. Surveys measured staff sociodemographic characteristics, adaptive reserve, evidence-based practice attitudes, and implementation leadership scores via validated scales. Training analytics, derived from end-of-course quizzes, included mean score and number attempts needed to pass. Interviews assessed staff-reported facilitators and barriers to current hypertension care delivery and uptake; following audio transcription, trained qualitative researchers employed a deductive coding approach, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

Most survey respondents reported moderate adaptive reserve (mean = 0.7, range = 0-1), evidence-based practice attitudes (mean = 2.7, range = 0-4), and implementation leadership (mean = 2.5, range = 0-4). Most staff passed training courses on first attempt and demonstrated high scores (means > 80%). Findings from interviews identified potential facilitators and barriers to implementation; specifically, staff reported that complex barriers to hypertension care, control, and clinical communication exist; there is a recognized need to improve hypertension care; in-clinic challenges with digital tool access imposes workflow delays; and despite high patient loads, staff are motivated to provide high-quality cares.

CONCLUSIONS

This study serves as one of the first to apply the CFIR to a rigorous pre-implementation evaluation within the understudied context of a FQHC and can serve as a model for similar trials seeking to identify and address contextual factors known to impact implementation success.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03713515 , date of registration: October 19, 2018.

Patient Sense of Belonging in the Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Study of Appointment Attendance and Patient Engagement

BACKGROUND

Health care systems have increasingly focused on patient engagement in efforts to improve patient-centered care. Appointment attendance is an integral component of patient engagement, and missed appointments are an ongoing problem for health care systems. Virtually no studies have examined how the sense of belonging is related to patient engagement within a health care system.

OBJECTIVE

To examine patient experiences in the Veterans Health Administration (VA) with outpatient appointment attendance to identify factors that affect sense of belonging and patient engagement.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

This study draws from qualitative data collected as part of a study to reduce missed appointments through use of enhanced appointment reminder letters. We conducted semistructured interviews with 27 VA patients with primary care or mental health clinic visits, using deductive and inductive analysis to develop themes. More than half of the participants were Vietnam veterans, 24 were over 40 years old, 21 were White, and 18 were men.

RESULTS

We identified 3 factors that influence sense of belonging within the VA: (1) feelings of camaraderie and commitment toward other veterans were relevant to patient experience in the VA; (2) interactions with all staff influenced the engagement a patient felt with a particular clinic, care team, and the VA; (3) personalized communication and messaging could humanize the VA and demonstrate its interest in engaging with veterans. Lastly, we found (4) sense of belonging appeared to promote appointment attendance and patient engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

There are multiple opportunities to strengthen patients' sense of belonging within the health care system that serves them. For veterans, strategies that build their sense of belonging may be a novel approach to increase appointment attendance and patient engagement in their health care.

Beta-Blockers and Cancer: Where Are We?

Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. After diagnosis, cancer treatment may involve radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and surgery. Several of the approaches used to treat cancer also attack normal cells and, thus, there is the need for more effective treatments that decrease the toxicity to normal cells and increase the success rates of treatment. The use of beta-blockers in cancer has been studied for their antagonist action on the adrenergic system through inhibition of beta-adrenergic receptors. Besides regulating processes such as blood pressure, heart rate, and airway strength or reactivity, beta-blockers block mechanisms that trigger tumorigenesis, angiogenesis, and tumor metastasis. This study presents a literature review of the available studies addressing cancer treatments and beta-blockers. Overall, data suggest that propranolol may be used as a complement for the treatment of several types of cancer due to its ability to improve cancer outcomes by decreasing cancer cell proliferation rates. Nonetheless, additional in vitro studies should be performed to fully understand the protective role of BBs in cancer patients.

Misconceptions and Facts About Beta-Blockers

Beta-blockers are commonly used medications, and they have been traditionally considered "cardioprotective." Their clinical use appears to be more widespread than the available evidence base supporting their role in cardioprotection. Beta-blockers counteract neurohumoral activation in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and offer both symptomatic improvement and reduction in adverse events. On the other hand, the use of beta-blockers in uncomplicated hypertension results in suboptimal outcomes compared to the established first-line antihypertensive agents. Providers at all levels should be familiar with common misconceptions regarding beta-blocker use in routine clinical practice.

Perceptions of quality in primary health care: perspectives of patients and professionals based on focus group discussions

Background

The EUprimecare project-team assessed the perception of primary health care (PHC) professionals and patients on quality of organization of PHC systems in the participating countries: Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania and Spain. This article presents the aggregated opinions, expectations and priorities of patients and professionals along some main dimensions of quality in primary health care, such as access, equity, appropriateness and patient- centeredness.

Methods

The focus group technique was applied in the study as a qualitative research method for exploration of attitudes regarding the health care system and health service. Discussions were addressing the topics of: general aspects of quality in primary health care; possibilities to receive/provide PHC services based on both parties needs; determinant factors of accessibility to PHC services; patient centeredness. The data sets collected during the focus group discussions were evaluated using the method of thematic analysis.

Results

There were 14 focus groups in total: a professional and a patient group in each of the seven partner countries. Findings of the thematic analysis were summarized along the following dimensions: access and equity, appropriateness (coordination, continuity, competency and comprehensiveness) and patient centeredness.

Conclusions

This study shows perceptions and views of patients in interaction with PHC and opinion of professionals working in PHC. It serves as source of criteria with relevance to everyday practice and experience. The criteria mentioned by patients and by health care professionals which were considered determining factors of the quality in primary care were quite similar among the investigated countries. However, the perception and the level of tolerance regarding some of the criteria differed among EUprimecare countries. Among these dissimilar criteria we especially note the gate-keeping role of GPs, the importance of nurses' competency and the acceptance of waiting times. The impact of waiting time on patient satisfaction is obvious; the influence of equity and access to PHC services are more dependent on the equal distribution of settings and doctors in urban and rural area. Foreseen shortage of doctors is expected to have a substantial influence on patient satisfaction in the near future.

Understanding minority patients' beliefs about hypertension to reduce gaps in communication between patients and clinicians

The authors' objective was to gain a better understanding of minority patients' beliefs about hypertension and to use this understanding to develop a model to explain gaps in communication between patients and clinicians. Eighty-eight hypertensive black and Latino adults from 4 inner-city primary care clinics participated in focus groups to elucidate views on hypertension. Participants believed that hypertension was a serious illness in need of treatment. Participants' diverged from the medical model in their beliefs about the time-course of hypertension (believed hypertension was intermittent); causes of hypertension (believed stress, racism, pollution, and poverty were the important causes); symptoms of hypertension (believed hypertension was primarily present when symptomatic); and treatments for hypertension (preferred alternative treatments that reduced stress over prescription medications). Participants distrusted clinicians who prioritized medications that did not directly address their understanding of the causes or symptoms of hypertension. Patients' models of understanding chronic asymptomatic illnesses such as hypertension challenge the legitimacy of lifelong, pill-centered treatment. Listening to patients' beliefs about hypertension may increase trust, improve communication, and encourage better self-management of hypertension.

Distance is relative: unpacking a principal barrier in rural healthcare

BACKGROUND

Distance to healthcare services is a known barrier to access. However, the degree to which distance is a barrier is not well described. Distance may impact different patients in different ways and be mediated by the context of medical need.

OBJECTIVE

Identify factors related to distance that impede access to care for rural veterans.

APPROACH

Mixed-methods approach including surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus groups at 15 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) primary care clinics in 8 Midwestern states. Survey data were compiled and interviews transcribed and coded for thematic content.

PARTICIPANTS

Surveys were completed by 96 patients and 88 providers/staff. In-depth interviews were completed by 42 patients and 64 providers/staff. A total of 7 focus groups were convened consisting of providers and staff.

KEY RESULTS

Distance was identified by patients, providers, and staff as the most important barrier for rural veterans seeking healthcare. In-depth interviews revealed specific examples of barriers to care such as long travel for common diagnostic services, routine specialty care, and emergency services. Patient factors compounding the impact of these barriers were health status, functional impairment, travel cost, and work or family obligations. Providers and staff reported challenges to healthcare delivery due to distance.

CONCLUSIONS

Distance as a barrier to healthcare was not uniformly defined. Rather, its importance was relative to the health status and resources of patients, complexity of service provided, and urgency of service needed. Improved transportation, flexible fee-based services, more structured communication mechanisms, and integration with community resources will improve access to care and overall health status for rural veterans.

The role of Beta-blockers as first-line therapy in hypertension

National and international guidelines still recommend β-blockers (BBs) as first-line agents in uncomplicated prevention of hypertension. However, it has been shown that BBs reduce blood pressure less than other drugs, specifically with regard to central aortic pressure. More importantly, recent meta-analyses have highlighted that in primary prevention BBs are associated with a relatively weak effect in reducing stroke compared to placebo or no treatment and, compared with other drugs, show evidence of a worse cardiovascular outcome. Several reasons might explain their mild cardioprotective effect, such as their unfavorable metabolic properties, a lack of efficacy on left ventricular hypertrophy regression and endothelial dysfunction, and reduced patient compliance. Thus, the available evidence does not support the use of BBs as first-line drugs in the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension. It remains to be determined whether newer BBs, such as nebivolol and carvedilol, will be more effective than older compounds in improving cardiovascular prognosis.

Physician and patient perceptions of the route of administration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: results from an international survey

INTRODUCTION

Acceptability of a prescribed treatment regimen is crucial to its clinical success, and the route of drug administration can play an important role in determining acceptability. This international survey explored physician and patient perceptions of injectable and oral treatments, and how these perceptions affect acceptability of treatments. Findings are discussed in the context of patient acceptance of treatments for venous thromboembolism (VTE) management.

METHODS

Physicians who are regular prescribers of VTE prophylaxis and a randomly selected patient population were recruited to take part in a questionnaire. Patients had to answer 23 questions and physicians gave their predictions of patients' responses.

RESULTS

In total, 568 physicians and 825 patients from 5 countries took part in the survey. More patients considered injectable treatments effective than considered oral treatments effective (87% versus 76%, respectively). This trend was well predicted by the physicians (98% and 61%, respectively). Additionally, 46% of patients would accept an injectable treatment program lasting >2months (rising to 67% for life-threatening diseases), a figure underestimated by physicians (11% and 46%, respectively). Overall, 73% of patients stated they would never miss an injection, where as 54% of physicians expected patients to miss one injection in a month of therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians who are regular prescribers of VTE prophylaxis underestimate patients' ability to accept injectable treatments as an alternative to oral therapy. This survey suggests that injectable treatments may be an acceptable, and often preferred, option over oral administration of therapeutic and preventive medicines.

"All the money in the world …" patient perspectives regarding the influence of financial incentives

OBJECTIVE

To analyze patient perspectives of the use of financial incentives in a hypertension intervention. Study Setting. Twelve Veterans Affairs primary care clinics over a 9-month period.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative semistructured interviews conducted with 54 hypertensive veterans participating in an intervention to promote guideline-consistent therapy. Intervention components included an intervention letter requesting patients talk with their providers, an offer of U.S.$20 to bring in the letter to their provider, and a health educator phone call.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted. Transcripts were coded for thematic content. The financial incentive theme was then subcoded for more detailed analysis.

PRINCIPLE FINDINGS

Most participants (n=48; 88.9 percent) stated the incentive had (or would have) no effect on their decision to initiate a discussion with their provider. Some participants articulated reservations about the effectiveness and/or appropriateness of financial incentives in health care decisions; however, a few expressed the opinion that there may be some potential benefits to the use of financial incentives if they encourage patients to be active in their health care.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study raise questions about the appropriateness and unintended consequences of employing patient-directed financial incentives in health care settings.

Why beta-blockers should not be used as first choice in uncomplicated hypertension

In the past 4 decades, beta blockers (BBs) have been widely used in the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension and are still recommended as first-line agents in national and international guidelines. Their putative cardioprotective properties, however, derive from the extrapolation into primary prevention of data relative to the reduction of mortality observed in the 1970s in patients with previous myocardial infarctions. In the past 5 years, a critical reanalysis of older trials, together with several meta-analyses, has shown that in patients with uncomplicated hypertension BBs exert a relatively weak effect in reducing stroke compared to placebo or no treatment, do not have any protective effect with regard to coronary artery disease and, compared to other drugs, such as calcium channel blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors or thiazide diuretics, show evidence of worse outcomes, particularly with regard to stroke. Several reasons can explain their reduced cardioprotection: their suboptimal effect in lowering blood pressure compared to other drugs; their "pseudoantihypertensive" efficacy (failure to lower central aortic pressure); their undesirable adverse effects, which reduce patients' compliance; their unfavorable metabolic effects; their lack of an effect on regression of left ventricular hypertrophy and endothelial dysfunction. In conclusion, the available evidence does not support the use of BBs as first-line drugs in the treatment of hypertension. Whether newer BBs, such as nebivolol and carvedilol, which show vasodilatory properties and a more favorable hemodynamic and metabolic profile, will be more efficacious in reducing morbidity and mortality remains to be determined.

Part II, provider perspectives: should patients be activated to request evidence-based medicine? A qualitative study of the VA project to implement diuretics (VAPID)

BACKGROUND

Hypertension guidelines recommend the use of thiazide diuretics as first-line therapy for uncomplicated hypertension, yet diuretics are under-prescribed, and hypertension is frequently inadequately treated. This qualitative evaluation of provider attitudes follows a randomized controlled trial of a patient activation strategy in which hypertensive patients received letters and incentives to discuss thiazides with their provider. The strategy prompted high discussion rates and enhanced thiazide-prescribing rates. Our objective was to interview providers to understand the effectiveness and acceptability of the intervention from their perspective, as well as the suitability of patient activation for more widespread guideline implementation.

METHODS

Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 21 primary care providers. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and reviewed by the interviewer before being analyzed for content. Interviews were coded, and relevant themes and specific responses were identified, grouped, and compared.

RESULTS

Of the 21 providers interviewed, 20 (95%) had a positive opinion of the intervention, and 18 of 20 (90%) thought the strategy was suitable for wider use. In explaining their opinions of the intervention, many providers discussed a positive effect on treatment, but they more often focused on the process of patient activation itself, describing how the intervention facilitated discussions by informing patients and making them more pro-active. Regarding effectiveness, providers suggested the intervention worked like a reminder, highlighted oversights, or changed their approach to hypertension management. Many providers also explained that the intervention 'aligned' patients' objectives with theirs, or made patients more likely to accept a change in medications. Negative aspects were mentioned infrequently, but concerns about the use of financial incentives were most common. Relevant barriers to initiating thiazide treatment included a hesitancy to switch medications if the patient was at or near goal blood pressure on a different anti-hypertensive.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient activation was acceptable to providers as a guideline implementation strategy, with considerable value placed on the activation process itself. By 'aligning' patients' objectives with those of their providers, this process also facilitated part of the effectiveness of the intervention. Patient activation shows promise for wider use as an implementation strategy, and should be tested in other areas of evidence-based medicine.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Clinical Trial Registry number NCT00265538.

Part I, patient perspective: activating patients to engage their providers in the use of evidence-based medicine: a qualitative evaluation of the VA Project to Implement Diuretics (VAPID)

BACKGROUND

This qualitative evaluation follows a randomized-control trial of a patient activation intervention in which hypertensive patients received a letter in the mail asking them to discuss thiazide diuretics with their provider. Results of the parent study indicated that the intervention was effective at facilitating discussions between patients and providers and enhancing thiazide prescribing rates. In the research presented here, our objective was to interview patients to determine their receptivity to patient activation, a potential leverage point for implementing interventions.

METHODS

Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with 54 patients, purposefully sampled from a randomized controlled trial of a patient activation intervention. All subjects had a history of hypertension and received primary care from one of twelve Veterans Affairs primary care clinics. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and reviewed by the interviewer. Interviews were independently coded by three qualitative researchers until consensus was attained, and relevant themes and responses were identified, grouped, and compared. NVivo 8.0 was used for data management and analysis.

RESULTS

Data from this qualitative study revealed that most participants held favorable opinions toward the patient activation intervention used in the clinical trial. Most (82%) stated they had a positive reaction. Patients emphasized they liked the intervention because it was straightforward and encouraged them to initiate discussions with their provider. Also, by being active participants in their healthcare, patients felt more invested. Of the few patients offering negative feedback (11%), their main concern was discomfort with possibly challenging their providers' healthcare practices. Another outcome of interest was the patients' perceptions of why they were or were not prescribed a thiazide diuretic, for which several clinically relevant reasons were provided.

CONCLUSION

Patients' perceptions of the intervention indicated it was effective via the encouragement of dialogue between themselves and their provider regarding evidence-based treatment options for hypertension. Additionally, patients' experiences with thiazide prescribing discussions shed light on the facilitators and barriers to implementing clinical practice guidelines regarding thiazides as first-line therapy for hypertension.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Clinical Trial Registry number NCT00265538.

Cardioprotection with beta-blockers: myths, facts and Pascal's wager

Beta-blockers were documented to reduce reinfarction rate more than 3 decades ago and subsequently touted as being cardioprotective for a broad spectrum of cardiovascular indications such as hypertension, diabetes, angina, atrial fibrillation as well as perioperatively in patients undergoing surgery. However, despite lowering blood pressure, beta-blockers have never shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in uncomplicated hypertension. Also, beta-blockers do not prevent heart failure in hypertension any better than any other antihypertensive drug class. Beta-blockers have been shown to increase the risk on new onset diabetes. When compared with nondiuretic antihypertensive drugs, beta-blockers increase all-cause mortality by 8% and stroke by 30% in patients with new onset diabetes. Beta-blockers are useful for rate control in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation but do not help restore sinus rhythm or have antifibrillatory effects in the atria. Beta-blockers provide symptomatic relief in patients with chronic stable angina but do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction. Adverse effects of beta-blockers are common including fatigue, dizziness, depression and sexual dysfunction. However, beta-blockers remain a cornerstone in the management of patients having suffered a myocardial infarction and for patients with heart failure. Thus, recent evidence argues against universal cardioprotective properties of beta-blockers but attest to their usefulness for specific cardiovascular indications.

Quality Improvement Initiatives Improve Hypertension Care Among Veterans

Background— We implemented a quality improvement initiative to improve hypertension care at Veterans Affairs–Tennessee Valley Healthcare System.

Methods and Results— We implemented multiple interventions among 2 teaching hospitals, 5 community-based outpatient clinics, and 4 contract clinic sites. Goals of the program were to (1) improve measurement and documentation of blood pressure (BP), (2) initiate outpatient patient education, (3) emphasize VA/Department of Defense hypertension treatment algorithms to providers, (4) emphasize external peer review program performance goals, and (5) initiate feedback of each clinic’s performance. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients seen each week with a diagnosis of hypertension who had their last available BP in control (≤140/90 mm Hg). Observation time was 40 weeks (14 weeks preintervention, 8 weeks intervention implementation, and 18 weeks postintervention), during which there were 55 586 unique clinic visits for hypertension. After intervention deployment, there was an absolute improvement of 4.2% in BP control (preintervention 61.5% [12 245/19 908] versus postintervention 65.7% [15 809/24 059], P <0.0001). Teaching hospital A had an absolute improvement of 1.4% (63.4% [3544/5591] versus 64.8% [4581/7073], P =0.108). Teaching hospital B showed a 0.8% absolute improvement in BP control (59.7% [2577/4315] versus 60.5% [3416/5650], P =0.456). The community-based outpatient clinics had a combined absolute improvement of 8.6% (60.2% [5252/8728] versus 68.8% [6895/10025], P <0.0001). The contract clinics had a combined improvement of 1.5% (68.4% [872/1274] versus 69.9% [917/1311], P =0.409). Results were sustained 1 year after intervention.

Conclusions— After implementing small, focused, and inexpensive interventions, BP control improved 4.2%, thereby improving the quality of hypertension care.

Beta-blockers: no longer an option for uncomplicated hypertension

Traditionally, beta-blockers, used as first-line agents to treat uncomplicated hypertension, were recommended by national and international guidelines despite a paucity of evidence regarding their cardiovascular benefit. However, evidence from recent trials and meta-analyses has questioned the use of beta-blockers as preferred agents. This article reviews the data available from clinical trials and argues that beta-blockers are less efficacious than other currently available antihypertensive agents for patients with uncomplicated hypertension.

Cardiovascular protection using beta-blockers: a critical review of the evidence

For more than 3 decades, beta-blockers have been widely used in the treatment of hypertension and are still recommended as first-line agents by national and international guidelines. Recent meta-analyses indicate that, in patients with uncomplicated hypertension, compared with other antihypertensive agents, first-line therapy with beta-blockers was associated with an increased risk of stroke, especially in the elderly cohort with no benefit for the end points of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and mortality. In this review, we critically analyze the evidence supporting the use of beta-blockers in patients with hypertension and evaluate evidence for its role in other indications. The review of the currently available literature shows that in patients with uncomplicated hypertension, there is a paucity of data or absence of evidence to support use of beta-blockers as monotherapy or as first-line agents. Given the increased risk of stroke, their "pseudo-antihypertensive" efficacy (failure to lower central aortic pressure), lack of effect on regression of target end organ effects like left ventricular hypertrophy and endothelial dysfunction, and numerous adverse effects, the risk benefit ratio for beta-blockers is not acceptable for this indication. However, beta-blockers remain very efficacious agents for the treatment of heart failure, certain types of arrhythmia, hypertropic obstructive cardiomyopathy, and in patients with prior myocardial infarction.