ArticlePloS one2026
Implementation of guideline-directed medical treatment for ischemic heart disease management: A knowledge, attitude and practice based cross-sectional survey.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGuideline-Directed Medical Therapy (GDMT) is central to managing ischemic heart disease (IHD), yet its implementation remains suboptimal in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including Pakistan.
aimThis study assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of healthcare professionals (HCPs) toward GDMT and identified key barriers to its application.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among HCPs including cardiologists and clinical pharmacists using a validated questionnaire. Data was collected from Punjab Institute of Cardiology, Lahore, Pakistan using convenience sampling. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA, Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and multiple linear regression analyses were used to evaluate KAP scores and their association with demographic and professional role. Statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons was done by Bonferroni correction.
resultsA total of 76 HCPs participated in the survey, comprising 42 cardiologists (55.3%) and 34 clinical pharmacists (44.7%). he overall mean knowledge score was 18.64 ± 2.02 out of 22 (84.7%). However, cardiologists (M = 19.54) scored significantly higher than clinical pharmacists (M = 17.52, p < 0.001); thus rejecting the null hypothesis. Knowledge scores were significantly higher among older professionals, those with postgraduate education, and clinic-based practitioners (p < 0.05). The average attitude score was 10.42 ± 2.06 out of 14 (74.4%), with younger professionals (aged 28-33), cardiologists, and postgraduates showing more favorable attitudes (p < 0.05). The mean practice score was 9.51 ± 2.55 (67.9%), with no significant differences by gender, role, or setting. Regression models showed age and profession significantly predicted knowledge, while attitude was influenced by education, experience, gender, and profession. Practice behaviors were not predicted by any demographic variables. Key barriers to GDMT implementation included limited consultation time (47.4%) and poor patient adherence (25%).
conclusionAlthough GDMT knowledge and attitudes were generally high among Pakistani cardiologists and clinical pharmacists, reported practice remained moderate. The results underscore the need for targeted educational interventions and system-level strategies to support consistent GDMT implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.