Rural and Urban Differentials in Primary Care Management of Chronic Heart Failure: New Data from the CASE Study

Objective: To determine whether primary care management of chronic heart failure (CHF) differed between rural and urban areas in Australia. Design: A cross-sectional survey stratified by Rural, Remote and Metropolitan Areas (RRMA) classification. The primary source of data was the Cardiac Awareness Survey and Evaluation (CASE) study. Setting: Secondary analysis of data obtained from 341 Australian general practitioners and 23 845 adults aged 60 years or more in 1998. Main outcome measures: CHF determined by criteria recommended by the World Health Organization, diagnostic practices, use of pharmacotherapy, and CHF-related hospital admissions in the 12 months before the study. Results: There was a significantly higher prevalence of CHF among general practice patients in large and small rural towns (16.1%) compared with capital city and metropolitan areas (12.4%) (P < 0.001). Echocardiography was used less often for diagnosis in rural towns compared with metropolitan areas (52.0% v 67.3%, P < 0.001). Rates of specialist referral were also significantly lower in rural towns than in metropolitan areas (59.1% v 69.6%, P < 0.001), as were prescribing rates of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (51.4% v 60.1%, P < 0.001). There was no geographical variation in prescribing rates of β-blockers (12.6% [rural] v 11.8% [metropolitan], P = 0.32). Overall, few survey participants received recommended “evidence-based practice” diagnosis and management for CHF (metropolitan, 4.6%; rural, 3.9%; and remote areas, 3.7%). Conclusions: This study found a higher prevalence of CHF, and significantly lower use of recommended diagnostic methods and pharmacological treatment among patients in rural areas.

Drug law enforcement : a review of the evaluation literature

This article describes the results of a systematic review of drug law enforcement evaluations. The authors describe the search procedures and document the results in five main categories: international/national interventions (e.g., interdiction and drug seizure), reactive/ directed interventions (e.g., crackdowns, raids, buy-busts, saturation patrol, etc.), proactive/ partnership interventions (e.g., third-party policing, problem-oriented policing, community policing, drug nuisance abatement, etc.), individualized interventions (e.g., arrest referral and diversion), or interventions that used a combination of reactive/directed and proactive/ partnership strategies. Results indicate that proactive interventions involving partnerships between the police and third parties and/or community entities appear to be more effective at reducing both drug and nondrug problems in drug problem places than are reactive/ directed approaches. But the general quality of research in drug law enforcement is poor, the range of interventions that have been evaluated is limited, and more high-quality research is needed across a greater variety of drug interventions.