Key result
Stroke survivors, caregivers, and GPs found a polypill acceptable for secondary stroke prevention due to convenience, despite concerns over therapeutic equivalence and side effects.
Why the study?
What are the attitudes of stroke survivors, caregivers, and GPs towards a polypill for the secondary prevention of stroke?
What are the attitudes of stroke survivors, caregivers, and GPs towards a polypill for the secondary prevention of stroke?
While stroke survivors, caregivers, and GPs recognize the convenience of a polypill for secondary stroke prevention, significant concerns about dosage inflexibility and therapeutic equivalence must be addressed to ensure uptake.
Attitudes toward polypill for secondary stroke prevention are largely positive yet concerns persist; leaves open real-world acceptability and implementation.
OBJECTIVES: To understand the perspectives of stroke survivors, caregivers and general practitioners (GPs) on a polypill approach, consisting of blood pressure and cholesterol-lowering therapies, with or without aspirin, for the secondary prevention of stroke. METHODS: A qualitative interview study was undertaken in 5 GP surgeries in the East of England. 28 survivors of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) were interviewed, 14 of them with a caregiver present, along with a convenience sample of 5 GPs, to assess attitudes towards a polypill and future use. Topic guides explored participants attitudes, potential uptake and long-term use, management of polypill medication and factors influencing the decision to prescribe. Data were analysed using a grounded theory approach. Key themes are presented and illustrated with verbatim quotes. RESULTS: The analysis identified 3 key themes: polypill benefits, polypill concerns and polypill lessons for implementation. Stroke/TIA survivors were positive about the polypill concept and considered it acceptable in the secondary prevention of stroke. Perceived benefits of a polypill included convenience resulting in improved adherence and reduced burden of treatment. Caregivers felt that a polypill would improve medication-taking practices, and GPs were open to prescribing it to those at increased cardiovascular risk. However, concerns raised included whether a polypill provided equivalent therapeutic benefit, side effects through combining medications, consequences of non-adherence, lack of flexibility in regulating dosage, disruption to current treatment and suitability to the wider stroke population. CONCLUSIONS: Participants acknowledged potential advantages in a polypill approach for secondary prevention of stroke; however, significant concerns remain. Further research on the efficacy of a polypill is needed to reassure practitioners whose concerns around inflexibility and treatment suitability are likely to influence the decision to prescribe a polypill for secondary prevention of stroke. Acceptability among survivors, caregivers and GPs is likely to determine the uptake and subsequent use of a polypill in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jamison et al. (2016) studied Stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (n=47). Polypill (blood pressure and cholesterol-lowering therapies, with or without aspirin) was evaluated on Attitudes towards a polypill and future use. Stroke survivors, caregivers, and GPs found a polypill acceptable for secondary stroke prevention due to convenience, despite concerns over therapeutic equivalence and side effects.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: