Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care

ObjectiveAccurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care.MethodsA cross-s...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:BMJ open 2018-02, Vol.8 (2), p.e017711
Hauptverfasser: Liew, Su May, Lee, Wai Khew, Khoo, Ee Ming, Ismail, Irmi Zarina, Ambigapathy, Subashini, Omar, Mimi, Suleiman, Siti Zaleha, Saaban, Juwita, Mohd Zaidi, Nur Farhana, Yusoff, Harmy
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page e017711
container_title BMJ open
container_volume 8
creator Liew, Su May
Lee, Wai Khew
Khoo, Ee Ming
Ismail, Irmi Zarina
Ambigapathy, Subashini
Omar, Mimi
Suleiman, Siti Zaleha
Saaban, Juwita
Mohd Zaidi, Nur Farhana
Yusoff, Harmy
description ObjectiveAccurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care.MethodsA cross-sectional study was carried out in primary care clinics in Malaysia in 2014. Patients aged 35 years and above without known cardiovascular disease (CVDs) were included. Face-to-face interviews with a structured questionnaire were used to collect sociodemographic and clinical data as well as patients’ perception and doctors’ estimate of the patients’ CVD risk. Associations were tested using χ2, correlation and independent t-tests.ResultsWe recruited 1094 patients and 57 doctors. Using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) alone, 508 patients (46.4%) were in the high-risk group. When diabetes was included as high risk, the number increased to 776 (70.9%). Only 34.4% of patients and 55.7% of doctors correctly estimated the patient’s CVD risk in comparison with the reference FRS.Of the high-risk patients, 664 (85.6%) underestimated their CV risk. Factors associated with underestimation by patients included not having family history of CVD (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.705, 95% CI 1.538 to 4.757), smaller waist circumference (AOR: 0.979,95% CI 0.960 to 0.999) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (indigenous/others: AOR: 0.129, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.235). Doctors underestimated risk in 59.8% of the high-risk group. Factors associated with underestimation by doctors were patients factors such as being female (AOR: 2.232, 95% CI 1.460 to 3.410), younger age (AOR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.886 to 0.930), non-hypertensive (AOR: 1.731, 95% CI 1.067 to 2.808), non-diabetic (AOR: 1.931, 95% CI 1.114 to 3.348), higher high-density lipoprotein levels (AOR: 3.546, 95% CI 2.025 to 6.209), lower systolic blood pressure (AOR: 0.970, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.982), non-smoker (AOR: 2.246, 95% CI 1.354 to 3.726) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (Indian: AOR: 0.430, 95% CI 0.257 to 0.720; indigenous/others: AOR: 2.498, 95% CI 1.346 to 4.636).ConclusionsThe majority of consultations occurring between doctors and patients are being informed by inaccurate cardiovascular risk estimation.
doi_str_mv 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017711
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5855472</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2099456210</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b416t-553aed29ae4059b84c1bb3469a7f5418004dab239f7e24aed8cd33d7f2f5c7cb3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNUctKAzEUDaJgqf0CNwHXU_Ocx0YpxRcIbnQd8hqbOp2MyUyhf2_qDKI7L4QbuOecew8HgEuMlhjT_Frttr6zbUYQLrL0CoxPwIwgxrIccX76638OFjFuUSrGK87JDGzWsoXG696HCGVrYCd7Z9s-Qu1DsLpvDtDG3u1kb6GWwTi_l1EPjQwwuPhxC1dQBx9jFhPY-VY2MPaDOUDXwi4kXjgcefYCnNWyiXYx9Tl4u797XT9mzy8PT-vVc6YYzvuMcyqtIZW0DPFKlUxjpSjLK1nUnOEyXW6kIrSqC0tYgpbaUGqKmtRcF1rRObgZdbtB7azRyUuQjZhOEV468XfSuo1493vBS85ZQZLA1SQQ_OeQvIutH0LyFQVBVcV4TjBKKDqivs0HW_9swEgcYxFTLOIYixhjSazlyErDfxG-AE9HlDo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2099456210</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care</title><source>BMJ Open Access Journals</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Liew, Su May ; Lee, Wai Khew ; Khoo, Ee Ming ; Ismail, Irmi Zarina ; Ambigapathy, Subashini ; Omar, Mimi ; Suleiman, Siti Zaleha ; Saaban, Juwita ; Mohd Zaidi, Nur Farhana ; Yusoff, Harmy</creator><creatorcontrib>Liew, Su May ; Lee, Wai Khew ; Khoo, Ee Ming ; Ismail, Irmi Zarina ; Ambigapathy, Subashini ; Omar, Mimi ; Suleiman, Siti Zaleha ; Saaban, Juwita ; Mohd Zaidi, Nur Farhana ; Yusoff, Harmy</creatorcontrib><description>ObjectiveAccurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care.MethodsA cross-sectional study was carried out in primary care clinics in Malaysia in 2014. Patients aged 35 years and above without known cardiovascular disease (CVDs) were included. Face-to-face interviews with a structured questionnaire were used to collect sociodemographic and clinical data as well as patients’ perception and doctors’ estimate of the patients’ CVD risk. Associations were tested using χ2, correlation and independent t-tests.ResultsWe recruited 1094 patients and 57 doctors. Using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) alone, 508 patients (46.4%) were in the high-risk group. When diabetes was included as high risk, the number increased to 776 (70.9%). Only 34.4% of patients and 55.7% of doctors correctly estimated the patient’s CVD risk in comparison with the reference FRS.Of the high-risk patients, 664 (85.6%) underestimated their CV risk. Factors associated with underestimation by patients included not having family history of CVD (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.705, 95% CI 1.538 to 4.757), smaller waist circumference (AOR: 0.979,95% CI 0.960 to 0.999) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (indigenous/others: AOR: 0.129, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.235). Doctors underestimated risk in 59.8% of the high-risk group. Factors associated with underestimation by doctors were patients factors such as being female (AOR: 2.232, 95% CI 1.460 to 3.410), younger age (AOR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.886 to 0.930), non-hypertensive (AOR: 1.731, 95% CI 1.067 to 2.808), non-diabetic (AOR: 1.931, 95% CI 1.114 to 3.348), higher high-density lipoprotein levels (AOR: 3.546, 95% CI 2.025 to 6.209), lower systolic blood pressure (AOR: 0.970, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.982), non-smoker (AOR: 2.246, 95% CI 1.354 to 3.726) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (Indian: AOR: 0.430, 95% CI 0.257 to 0.720; indigenous/others: AOR: 2.498, 95% CI 1.346 to 4.636).ConclusionsThe majority of consultations occurring between doctors and patients are being informed by inaccurate cardiovascular risk estimation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2044-6055</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017711</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Cardiovascular disease ; Clinical decision making ; Cross-sectional studies ; Diabetes ; General practice / Family practice ; Health risk assessment ; Heart ; HIV ; Human immunodeficiency virus ; Hypertension ; Patients ; Primary care ; Stroke ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>BMJ open, 2018-02, Vol.8 (2), p.e017711</ispartof><rights>Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.</rights><rights>2018 Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-b416t-553aed29ae4059b84c1bb3469a7f5418004dab239f7e24aed8cd33d7f2f5c7cb3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-b416t-553aed29ae4059b84c1bb3469a7f5418004dab239f7e24aed8cd33d7f2f5c7cb3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/2/e017711.full.pdf$$EPDF$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/2/e017711.full$$EHTML$$P50$$Gbmj$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,27549,27550,27924,27925,53791,53793,77601,77632</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Liew, Su May</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Wai Khew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khoo, Ee Ming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ismail, Irmi Zarina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ambigapathy, Subashini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Omar, Mimi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suleiman, Siti Zaleha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saaban, Juwita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohd Zaidi, Nur Farhana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yusoff, Harmy</creatorcontrib><title>Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care</title><title>BMJ open</title><description>ObjectiveAccurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care.MethodsA cross-sectional study was carried out in primary care clinics in Malaysia in 2014. Patients aged 35 years and above without known cardiovascular disease (CVDs) were included. Face-to-face interviews with a structured questionnaire were used to collect sociodemographic and clinical data as well as patients’ perception and doctors’ estimate of the patients’ CVD risk. Associations were tested using χ2, correlation and independent t-tests.ResultsWe recruited 1094 patients and 57 doctors. Using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) alone, 508 patients (46.4%) were in the high-risk group. When diabetes was included as high risk, the number increased to 776 (70.9%). Only 34.4% of patients and 55.7% of doctors correctly estimated the patient’s CVD risk in comparison with the reference FRS.Of the high-risk patients, 664 (85.6%) underestimated their CV risk. Factors associated with underestimation by patients included not having family history of CVD (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.705, 95% CI 1.538 to 4.757), smaller waist circumference (AOR: 0.979,95% CI 0.960 to 0.999) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (indigenous/others: AOR: 0.129, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.235). Doctors underestimated risk in 59.8% of the high-risk group. Factors associated with underestimation by doctors were patients factors such as being female (AOR: 2.232, 95% CI 1.460 to 3.410), younger age (AOR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.886 to 0.930), non-hypertensive (AOR: 1.731, 95% CI 1.067 to 2.808), non-diabetic (AOR: 1.931, 95% CI 1.114 to 3.348), higher high-density lipoprotein levels (AOR: 3.546, 95% CI 2.025 to 6.209), lower systolic blood pressure (AOR: 0.970, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.982), non-smoker (AOR: 2.246, 95% CI 1.354 to 3.726) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (Indian: AOR: 0.430, 95% CI 0.257 to 0.720; indigenous/others: AOR: 2.498, 95% CI 1.346 to 4.636).ConclusionsThe majority of consultations occurring between doctors and patients are being informed by inaccurate cardiovascular risk estimation.</description><subject>Cardiovascular disease</subject><subject>Clinical decision making</subject><subject>Cross-sectional studies</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>General practice / Family practice</subject><subject>Health risk assessment</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>HIV</subject><subject>Human immunodeficiency virus</subject><subject>Hypertension</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Primary care</subject><subject>Stroke</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>2044-6055</issn><issn>2044-6055</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>9YT</sourceid><sourceid>ACMMV</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNUctKAzEUDaJgqf0CNwHXU_Ocx0YpxRcIbnQd8hqbOp2MyUyhf2_qDKI7L4QbuOecew8HgEuMlhjT_Frttr6zbUYQLrL0CoxPwIwgxrIccX76638OFjFuUSrGK87JDGzWsoXG696HCGVrYCd7Z9s-Qu1DsLpvDtDG3u1kb6GWwTi_l1EPjQwwuPhxC1dQBx9jFhPY-VY2MPaDOUDXwi4kXjgcefYCnNWyiXYx9Tl4u797XT9mzy8PT-vVc6YYzvuMcyqtIZW0DPFKlUxjpSjLK1nUnOEyXW6kIrSqC0tYgpbaUGqKmtRcF1rRObgZdbtB7azRyUuQjZhOEV468XfSuo1493vBS85ZQZLA1SQQ_OeQvIutH0LyFQVBVcV4TjBKKDqivs0HW_9swEgcYxFTLOIYixhjSazlyErDfxG-AE9HlDo</recordid><startdate>20180201</startdate><enddate>20180201</enddate><creator>Liew, Su May</creator><creator>Lee, Wai Khew</creator><creator>Khoo, Ee Ming</creator><creator>Ismail, Irmi Zarina</creator><creator>Ambigapathy, Subashini</creator><creator>Omar, Mimi</creator><creator>Suleiman, Siti Zaleha</creator><creator>Saaban, Juwita</creator><creator>Mohd Zaidi, Nur Farhana</creator><creator>Yusoff, Harmy</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><general>BMJ Publishing Group</general><scope>9YT</scope><scope>ACMMV</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180201</creationdate><title>Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care</title><author>Liew, Su May ; Lee, Wai Khew ; Khoo, Ee Ming ; Ismail, Irmi Zarina ; Ambigapathy, Subashini ; Omar, Mimi ; Suleiman, Siti Zaleha ; Saaban, Juwita ; Mohd Zaidi, Nur Farhana ; Yusoff, Harmy</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b416t-553aed29ae4059b84c1bb3469a7f5418004dab239f7e24aed8cd33d7f2f5c7cb3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Cardiovascular disease</topic><topic>Clinical decision making</topic><topic>Cross-sectional studies</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>General practice / Family practice</topic><topic>Health risk assessment</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>HIV</topic><topic>Human immunodeficiency virus</topic><topic>Hypertension</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Primary care</topic><topic>Stroke</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Liew, Su May</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Wai Khew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khoo, Ee Ming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ismail, Irmi Zarina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ambigapathy, Subashini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Omar, Mimi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Suleiman, Siti Zaleha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saaban, Juwita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohd Zaidi, Nur Farhana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yusoff, Harmy</creatorcontrib><collection>BMJ Open Access Journals</collection><collection>BMJ Journals:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Liew, Su May</au><au>Lee, Wai Khew</au><au>Khoo, Ee Ming</au><au>Ismail, Irmi Zarina</au><au>Ambigapathy, Subashini</au><au>Omar, Mimi</au><au>Suleiman, Siti Zaleha</au><au>Saaban, Juwita</au><au>Mohd Zaidi, Nur Farhana</au><au>Yusoff, Harmy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care</atitle><jtitle>BMJ open</jtitle><date>2018-02-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>e017711</spage><pages>e017711-</pages><issn>2044-6055</issn><eissn>2044-6055</eissn><abstract>ObjectiveAccurate cardiovascular risk estimations by patients and doctors are important as these affect health behaviour and medical decision making. We aimed to determine if doctors and patients were accurately estimating the absolute cardiovascular risk of patients in primary care.MethodsA cross-sectional study was carried out in primary care clinics in Malaysia in 2014. Patients aged 35 years and above without known cardiovascular disease (CVDs) were included. Face-to-face interviews with a structured questionnaire were used to collect sociodemographic and clinical data as well as patients’ perception and doctors’ estimate of the patients’ CVD risk. Associations were tested using χ2, correlation and independent t-tests.ResultsWe recruited 1094 patients and 57 doctors. Using the Framingham Risk Score (FRS) alone, 508 patients (46.4%) were in the high-risk group. When diabetes was included as high risk, the number increased to 776 (70.9%). Only 34.4% of patients and 55.7% of doctors correctly estimated the patient’s CVD risk in comparison with the reference FRS.Of the high-risk patients, 664 (85.6%) underestimated their CV risk. Factors associated with underestimation by patients included not having family history of CVD (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.705, 95% CI 1.538 to 4.757), smaller waist circumference (AOR: 0.979,95% CI 0.960 to 0.999) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (indigenous/others: AOR: 0.129, 95% CI 0.071 to 0.235). Doctors underestimated risk in 59.8% of the high-risk group. Factors associated with underestimation by doctors were patients factors such as being female (AOR: 2.232, 95% CI 1.460 to 3.410), younger age (AOR: 0.908, 95% CI 0.886 to 0.930), non-hypertensive (AOR: 1.731, 95% CI 1.067 to 2.808), non-diabetic (AOR: 1.931, 95% CI 1.114 to 3.348), higher high-density lipoprotein levels (AOR: 3.546, 95% CI 2.025 to 6.209), lower systolic blood pressure (AOR: 0.970, 95% CI 0.957 to 0.982), non-smoker (AOR: 2.246, 95% CI 1.354 to 3.726) and ethnicity in comparison with the Malay as reference group (Indian: AOR: 0.430, 95% CI 0.257 to 0.720; indigenous/others: AOR: 2.498, 95% CI 1.346 to 4.636).ConclusionsThe majority of consultations occurring between doctors and patients are being informed by inaccurate cardiovascular risk estimation.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><doi>10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017711</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2044-6055
ispartof BMJ open, 2018-02, Vol.8 (2), p.e017711
issn 2044-6055
2044-6055
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5855472
source BMJ Open Access Journals; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; PubMed Central Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Cardiovascular disease
Clinical decision making
Cross-sectional studies
Diabetes
General practice / Family practice
Health risk assessment
Heart
HIV
Human immunodeficiency virus
Hypertension
Patients
Primary care
Stroke
Systematic review
title Can doctors and patients correctly estimate cardiovascular risk? A cross-sectional study in primary care
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T19%3A55%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Can%20doctors%20and%20patients%20correctly%20estimate%20cardiovascular%20risk?%20A%20cross-sectional%20study%20in%20primary%20care&rft.jtitle=BMJ%20open&rft.au=Liew,%20Su%20May&rft.date=2018-02-01&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=e017711&rft.pages=e017711-&rft.issn=2044-6055&rft.eissn=2044-6055&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017711&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2099456210%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2099456210&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true