Stakeholder Perspectives on a Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Polypill: A Multi-Center Mixed Methods Study.

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Justin C Chen, Colette DeJong, Mansi Agarwal, Amaris M Hairston, Matthew S Durstenfeld, Virginia McKay, Mark D Huffman, Priscilla Y Hsue, Anubha Agarwal
{"title":"Stakeholder Perspectives on a Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Polypill: A Multi-Center Mixed Methods Study.","authors":"Justin C Chen, Colette DeJong, Mansi Agarwal, Amaris M Hairston, Matthew S Durstenfeld, Virginia McKay, Mark D Huffman, Priscilla Y Hsue, Anubha Agarwal","doi":"10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.011121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A polypill containing all 4 classes of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been proposed to change the heart failure treatment paradigm. The acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of a HFrEF polypill-based strategy are unknown. The purpose of this study was to elicit patients' and providers' priorities in the design of HFrEF polypills.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From April 2023 to December 2023, we conducted a convergent parallel mixed-methods study at Washington University in St. Louis, the University of California, San Francisco, and the American College of Cardiology. We administered physician surveys containing adapted implementation outcome measures to elicit physicians' perspectives on the acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of a HFrEF polypill (Likert scale ranging from 1 [low] to 5 [high]). We used a purposive sampling frame to select patients and physicians for in-depth interviews. Using semi-structured interview guides, we elicited participants' perspectives on current HFrEF care, HFrEF polypill design, and supportive strategies. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research v2.0 guided thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 214 survey respondents across the United States, physicians agreed that HFrEF polypills are highly acceptable (mean [SD], 4.2 [0.7]), highly appropriate (4.1 [0.8]), and highly feasible (4.1 [0.7]). Key themes from 9 patient and 22 provider interviews included the following: (1) current determinants of HFrEF care, including medication adherence, variations in clinical practice, and health care access, (2) provider-level differences in preferred HFrEF polypill design, (3) cost and equity considerations in the implementation of HFrEF polypills, and (4) research priorities for evaluating polypill effectiveness and implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A HFrEF polypill-based strategy was viewed as highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible by patients and physicians. Participants described key priorities in HFrEF polypill design, titratability, and potential impacts on health equity that will directly inform future randomized controlled trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":49221,"journal":{"name":"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.011121","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A polypill containing all 4 classes of guideline-directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has been proposed to change the heart failure treatment paradigm. The acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of a HFrEF polypill-based strategy are unknown. The purpose of this study was to elicit patients' and providers' priorities in the design of HFrEF polypills.

Methods: From April 2023 to December 2023, we conducted a convergent parallel mixed-methods study at Washington University in St. Louis, the University of California, San Francisco, and the American College of Cardiology. We administered physician surveys containing adapted implementation outcome measures to elicit physicians' perspectives on the acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness of a HFrEF polypill (Likert scale ranging from 1 [low] to 5 [high]). We used a purposive sampling frame to select patients and physicians for in-depth interviews. Using semi-structured interview guides, we elicited participants' perspectives on current HFrEF care, HFrEF polypill design, and supportive strategies. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research v2.0 guided thematic analysis.

Results: Of the 214 survey respondents across the United States, physicians agreed that HFrEF polypills are highly acceptable (mean [SD], 4.2 [0.7]), highly appropriate (4.1 [0.8]), and highly feasible (4.1 [0.7]). Key themes from 9 patient and 22 provider interviews included the following: (1) current determinants of HFrEF care, including medication adherence, variations in clinical practice, and health care access, (2) provider-level differences in preferred HFrEF polypill design, (3) cost and equity considerations in the implementation of HFrEF polypills, and (4) research priorities for evaluating polypill effectiveness and implementation.

Conclusions: A HFrEF polypill-based strategy was viewed as highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible by patients and physicians. Participants described key priorities in HFrEF polypill design, titratability, and potential impacts on health equity that will directly inform future randomized controlled trials.

利益相关者对射血分数降低型心力衰竭多药丸的看法:多中心混合方法研究。
背景:有人提出了一种包含射血分数减低型心力衰竭(HFrEF)指南指导的全部 4 类药物治疗的多药丸,以改变心力衰竭的治疗模式。基于 HFrEF 多药丸策略的可接受性、适宜性和可行性尚不清楚。本研究旨在了解患者和医疗服务提供者在设计 HFrEF 多丸时的优先考虑事项:从 2023 年 4 月到 2023 年 12 月,我们在圣路易斯华盛顿大学、旧金山加利福尼亚大学和美国心脏病学会开展了一项趋同平行混合方法研究。我们对医生进行了调查,调查内容包括经过改编的实施结果测量,以了解医生对 HFrEF 多药丸的可接受性、可行性和适宜性的看法(李克特量表,从 1 [低] 到 5 [高])。我们采用目的性抽样框架选择患者和医生进行深入访谈。我们使用半结构化访谈指南,了解了参与者对当前 HFrEF 护理、HFrEF 多药丸设计和支持策略的看法。实施研究综合框架 v2.0 为主题分析提供了指导:在全美 214 名调查对象中,医生一致认为 HFrEF 多药丸的可接受性高(平均值 [SD], 4.2 [0.7])、非常合适(4.1 [0.8])、可行性高(4.1 [0.7])。在对 9 名患者和 22 名医疗服务提供者的访谈中得出的关键主题包括以下几点:(1) 当前 HFrEF 护理的决定因素,包括用药依从性、临床实践的变化和医疗保健的可及性,(2) 医疗服务提供者在首选 HFrEF 多药丸设计方面的差异,(3) 实施 HFrEF 多药丸的成本和公平性考虑,以及 (4) 评估多药丸有效性和实施情况的研究重点:结论:患者和医生都认为基于 HFrEF 多药丸的策略非常容易接受、合适且可行。与会者描述了 HFrEF 多药丸设计、滴定性和对健康公平的潜在影响方面的关键优先事项,这将直接为未来的随机对照试验提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
357
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, an American Heart Association journal, publishes articles related to improving cardiovascular health and health care. Content includes original research, reviews, and case studies relevant to clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. The online-only journal is dedicated to furthering the mission of promoting safe, effective, efficient, equitable, timely, and patient-centered care. Through its articles and contributions, the journal equips you with the knowledge you need to improve clinical care and population health, and allows you to engage in scholarly activities of consequence to the health of the public. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes considers the following types of articles: Original Research Articles, Data Reports, Methods Papers, Cardiovascular Perspectives, Care Innovations, Novel Statistical Methods, Policy Briefs, Data Visualizations, and Caregiver or Patient Viewpoints.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信