[Impact of consensus conferences of hypercholesterolemia and hypertension in Spain]

In May 1989 and June 1990, consensus conferences of treatment of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia respectively were held in Spain, at the General Division of Health Planning from the Ministry of Health. The objective of this article is to assess the effect of such conferences of physicians' knowledge, attitudes and practices.

Cross-sectional telephone survey was carried out in physicians of general medicine, family practice, internal medicine and cardiology specialties. 807 physicians were selected, 347 family physicians, 177 general practitioners, 156 cardiologists and 128 internists. A questionnaire of 30 items was designed to obtain information about demographic and professional characteristics, knowledge of the consensus conferences and attitudes related to a case of an otherwise healthy asymptomatic 48-years-old man.

The response rate was 57% (463 physicians), and 60% of physicians had knowledge about the conferences, being general practitioners the ones who had less knowledge of the conferences. The items about recommendations of diet and pharmacological treatment were property answered (about 50% of the physicians answered correctly). The mean of serum cholesterol when diet and drugs are recommended was 232 mg/dl (SD 23) (6.01 mmol/l) and 260 mg/dl (SD 25) (6.7 mmol/l) respectively. The first-choice cholesterol lowering drugs were statines. A patient was considered as hypertensive it the mean of systolic blood pressure was 149 mmHg (9.4) and the mean for diastolic blood pressure was 92 mmHg (3.8). The mean of diastolic blood pressure considered for drug treatment was 96.7 mmHg (SD 4.6). The first-choice antihypertensive drugs were angiotensin conversive enzyme inhibitors.

Diffusion of the conferences has been unequal, being general practitioners less knowledgeable about the content of the conferences. Although physicians know reasonably well the recommendations about diet and drug treatments, the attitude in practice is more aggressive than recommended. Globally, the knowledge of the contents of the conferences was acceptable, although there were differences between specialties; however the effect on clinical practice is still low.