Factors associated with adherence to guideline-recommended cardiovascular disease prevention among HIV clinicians

Integrating cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in routine HIV care remains a challenge. This study aimed to identify factors associated with adherence to guideline-recommended CVD preventive practices among HIV clinicians. Clinicians from eight HIV clinics in Atlanta were invited to complete an online survey. The survey was informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and assessed the following: clinician CVD risk screening and advice frequency (never to always), individual characteristics (clinician beliefs, self-efficacy, and motivation), inner setting factors (clinic culture, learning climate, leadership engagement, and resources available), and outer setting factors (peer pressure and patient needs). Bivariate correlations examined associations between these factors and guideline adherence. Thirty-eight clinicians completed the survey (82% women, mean age 42 years, 50% infectious disease physicians). For risk screening, clinicians always check patient blood pressure (median score 7.0/7), while they usually ask about smoking or check their blood glucose (median score 6.0/7). For advice provision, clinicians usually recommend quitting smoking, controlling cholesterol or controlling blood pressure (median score 6.0/7), while they often recommend controlling blood glucose, losing weight, or improving diet/physical activity (median score 5.5/7). Clinician beliefs, motivation and self-efficacy were positively correlated with screening and advice practices (r = .55−.84), while inner setting factors negatively correlated with lifestyle-related screening and advice practices (r = −.51 to −.76). Peer pressure was positively correlated with screening and advice practices (r = .57–.89). Clinician psychosocial characteristics and perceived peer pressure positively influence adherence to guideline-recommended CVD preventive practices. These correlates along with leadership engagement could be targeted with proven implementation strategies.

Preferences and beliefs of Dutch orthopaedic surgeons and patients reduce the implementation of “Choosing Wisely” recommendations in degenerative knee disease

Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess which factors were associated with the implementation of “Choosing Wisely” recommendations to refrain from routine MRI and arthroscopy use in degenerative knee disease. Methods Cross-sectional surveys were sent to 123 patients (response rate 95%) and 413 orthopaedic surgeons (response rate 62%) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with implementation of “Choosing Wisely” recommendations. Results Factors reducing implementation of the MRI recommendation among patients included explanation of added value by an orthopaedic surgeon [OR 0.18 (95% CI 0.07–0.47)] and patient preference for MRI [OR 0.27 (95% CI 0.08–0.92)]. Factors reducing implementation among orthopaedic surgeons were higher valuation of own MRI experience than existing evidence [OR 0.41 (95% CI 0.19–0.88)] and higher estimated patients’ knowledge to participate in shared decision-making [OR 0.38 (95% CI 0.17–0.88)]. Factors reducing implementation of the arthroscopy recommendation among patients were orthopaedic surgeons’ preferences for an arthroscopy [OR 0.03 (95% CI 0.00–0.22)] and positive experiences with arthroscopy of friends/family [OR 0.03 (95% CI 0.00–0.39)]. Factors reducing implementation among orthopaedic surgeons were higher valuation of own arthroscopy experience than existing evidence [OR 0.17 (95% CI 0.07–0.46)] and belief in the added value [OR 0.28 (95% CI 0.10–0.81)]. Conclusions Implementation of “Choosing Wisely” recommendations in degenerative knee disease can be improved by strategies to change clinician beliefs about the added value of MRIs and arthroscopies, and by patient-directed strategies addressing patient preferences and underlying beliefs for added value of MRI and arthroscopies resulting from experiences of people in their environment. Level of evidence IV.