Physician Perception of Blood Pressure Control and Treatment Behavior in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study
2011

Physician Perception of Blood Pressure Control in High-Risk Hypertensive Patients

Sample size: 1614 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Banegas José R., Lundelin Krista, de la Figuera Mariano, de la Cruz Juan J., Graciani Auxiliadora, Rodríguez-Artalejo Fernando, Puig Juan García

Primary Institution: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

Hypothesis

How do physicians perceive blood pressure control and treatment behavior in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and previous cardiovascular disease?

Conclusion

Physicians often do not change treatment for uncontrolled hypertension because they believe it is unnecessary, especially when blood pressure is only slightly above the target.

Supporting Evidence

  • Only 11.6% of patients were controlled according to the guidelines.
  • Physicians did not change treatment in 49.2% of uncontrolled patients.
  • Blood pressure level was inversely associated with treatment change.
  • Physicians often overestimate the degree of blood pressure control.
  • Physicians scheduled early appointments for patients with slightly elevated blood pressure.

Takeaway

Doctors sometimes think their patients' blood pressure is fine even when it's not, which means they don't change their medicine when they should.

Methodology

A cross-sectional study involving 321 primary care physicians and 1,614 patients with hypertension and previous cardiovascular events.

Potential Biases

Physicians may overestimate blood pressure control, leading to inappropriate treatment decisions.

Limitations

The study's cross-sectional design limits the ability to infer causation, and the sample may not be representative of all hypertensive patients.

Participant Demographics

Mean age of patients was 66.5 years, 62.6% were men, and 27.8% had secondary or higher education.

Statistical Information

Confidence Interval

95% CI 43.2%–50.4%

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1371/journal.pone.0024569

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication