Changes over time in attitudes towards the management of older patients with heart failure by general practitioners: a qualitative study

A qualitative analysis of the barriers and enablers faced by Australian rural general practitioners in the non-pharmacological management of congestive heart failure in community dwelling patients

BACKGROUND

Congestive heart failure (CHF) is a significant health problem in Australia, and disproportionately affects rural Australians. Management of CHF in Australia is heavily centred around the general practitioner (GP). Australian and international literature indicates there is a gap between current and best practice in CHF management. There is little known about the non-pharmacological aspects of management, or CHF management in a rural Australian context. This study aimed to identify what Australian GPs practicing in the Northern Rivers Region of New South Wales, Australia, perceived were the barriers and enablers in the non-pharmacological management of CHF amongst community dwelling patients, to inform healthcare access, resourcing and delivery in Australian rural environments.

METHODS

Qualitative study involving a realist thematic analysis of data collected from semi-structured face-to-face interviews.

RESULTS

Fifteen GPs and GP trainees participated. Four interlinked key themes underpinning GPs' experiences with non-pharmacological management of CHF were interpreted from the interview data: (1) resources, (2) complexity of heart failure, (3) relationships, and (4) patient demographics, priorities and views affect how patients engage with non-pharmacological management of CHF.

CONCLUSION

Rural Australian GPs face considerable barriers to non-pharmacological management of CHF. The data suggests that increased rural Australian health services and community transportation, multidisciplinary management, and stronger professional networks have the potential to be invaluable enablers of CHF management. Further research exploring non-pharmacological management of CHF in other rural contexts may provide additional insights to better inform rural healthcare access and resourcing.

Cross-Sectional Analysis of Patient-Centered Language Use in Journals Publishing Research Focused on Heart Failure

Purpose

Detrimental effects of using non-patient-centered language (nPCL) have been reported for diabetes, mental illness, and obesity, and both the American Medical Association (AMA) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommend using patient-centered language in medical literature. Heart failure is a common yet stigmatized disease, and nPCL may further propagate stigma. This study analyzed current use of nPCL in journals focused on heart failure research and also examined whether the journals steer authors to adhere to AMA or ICMJE guidelines regarding nPCL.

Methods

Following systematic search of PubMed for heart failure-related articles published from May 1, 2018, to April 30, 2020, cross-sectional analysis was performed. Each selected article was inspected for an array of nPCL terms and frequency of nPCL usage. Chi-squared tests and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess relationships between study characteristics and nPCL use.

Results

Of the 195 articles fully analyzed, 108 (55.4%) contained a nPCL term, the most frequently used being "heart failure patient" (78.7%), "burden" (23.1%), and "suffer" (15.7%). Use of nPCL was disproportionately more common in original research articles (63.5%) and less common in case reports (18.2%). Articles that did not detail any treatment or intervention used the most nPCL (71.1%). No statistically significant association was found between a journal's impact factor and its adherence to AMA or ICMJE recommendations.

Conclusions

nPCL is widely used in publications reporting on heart failure. We encourage authors and journals to reduce nPCL to help decrease the stigma patients with this disease often encounter.