Nurses’ and patients’ experiences and preferences of the ankle-brachial pressure index and multi-site photoplethysmography for the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease: A qualitative study

Autoři: Jason Scott aff001;  Jan Lecouturier aff002;  Nikki Rousseau aff002;  Gerard Stansby aff003;  Andrew Sims aff005;  Lesley Wilson aff003;  John Allen aff005
Působiště autorů: Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom aff001;  Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom aff002;  Northern Vascular Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom aff003;  School of Surgical and Reproductive Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom aff004;  Northern Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering Department, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom aff005;  Institute of Cellular Medicine, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom aff006
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224546


Peripheral arterial disease is a global health problem, affecting around 20% of people aged over 60 years. Whilst ankle-brachial pressure index (ABPI) is regularly used for diagnosis, it has a number of limitations, which have presented a need for alternative methods of diagnosis. Multi-site photoplethysmography (MPPG) is one such method, but evidence of acceptability of both methods is lacking. This study aims to describe and compare preferences and experiences amongst nurses and patients of ABPI and MPPG use in primary care. We used qualitative research methods in the context of a clinical diagnostic study comparing ABPI with MPPG. Use of ABPI and MPPG by 13 nurses were observed with 51 patients across general practice surgeries in North-East England in 2015/16. Follow-up semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 nurses and 27 patients. Data were thematically analysed. Two major themes were identified: (1) device preferences; (2) test discomfort and anxiety. There was a compelling preference for MPPG due to ease of use, speed of the test, patient comfort, and perceived device accuracy/objectivity. However some patients struggled to identify a preference, describing ambivalence to medical testing. ABPI was deemed uncomfortable and painful, particularly when the blood pressure cuff was inflated at the lower limbs. There was also evidence of anxiety amongst patients when their foot pulses were not identified using ABPI. Whilst ABPI is a non-invasive and routine procedure it was associated with a number of drawbacks in clinical practice. Nurses required considerable dexterity to employ the test, and it resulted in anxiety amongst some patients. Conversely, MPPG was deemed to be easier and quicker to use, and perceived to be less subjective. Should diagnostic accuracy and cost be comparable to ABPI, then the findings of this study suggest MPPG would be preferable to ABPI for patients as well as nurses.

Klíčová slova:

Blood pressure – Body limbs – Diagnostic medicine – Feet – Legs – Nurses – Primary care – Qualitative studies


1. Ouriel K. Peripheral arterial disease. The Lancet 2001;358(9289):1257–64

2. McGrae McDermott M, Greenland P, Liu K, et al. Leg Symptoms in Peripheral Arterial DiseaseAssociated Clinical Characteristics and Functional Impairment. JAMA 2001;286(13):1599–606 doi: 10.1001/jama.286.13.1599 11585483

3. Olin JW, Sealove BA. Peripheral Artery Disease: Current Insight Into the Disease and Its Diagnosis and Management. Mayo Clin Proc 2010;85(7):678–92 doi: 10.4065/mcp.2010.0133 20592174

4. Sigvant B, Wiberg-Hedman K, Bergqvist D, et al. A population-based study of peripheral arterial disease prevalence with special focus on critical limb ischemia and sex differences. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2007;45(6):1185–91 doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.02.004 17543683

5. Ustundag H, Gul A, Findik UY. Quality of Life and Pain in Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease. International Journal of Caring Sciences 2016;9(3):838–45

6. Rose MD. A review of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). British Journal of Cardiac Nursing 2015;10(6):277–83 doi: 10.12968/bjca.2015.10.6.277

7. Lecouturier J, Scott J, Rousseau N, et al. Peripheral arterial disease diagnosis and management in primary care: a qualitative study. BJGP Open 2019:bjgpopen19X101659 doi: 10.3399/bjgpopen19X101659 31581118

8. Diehm C, Allenberg JR, Pittrow D, et al. Mortality and Vascular Morbidity in Older Adults With Asymptomatic Versus Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease. Circulation 2009;120(21):2053–61 doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.865600 19901192

9. Hirsch AT, Murphy TP, Lovell MB, et al. Gaps in Public Knowledge of Peripheral Arterial Disease. The First National PAD Public Awareness Survey 2007;116(18):2086–94 doi: 10.1161/circulationaha.107.725101 17875966

10. Sen S, Lynch DR, Kaltsas E, et al. Association of Asymptomatic Peripheral Arterial Disease With Vascular Events in Patients With Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack. Stroke 2009;40(11):3472–77 doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.559278 19713540

11. Emdin CA, Anderson SG, Callender T, et al. Usual blood pressure, peripheral arterial disease, and vascular risk: cohort study of 4.2 million adults. BMJ: British Medical Journal 2015;351 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h4865 26419648

12. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2012. Lower limb peripheral arterial disease: diagnosis and management, available at, accessed 4 August 2017

13. Eiberg JP, Grønvall Rasmussen JB, Hansen MA, et al. Duplex Ultrasound Scanning of Peripheral Arterial Disease of the Lower Limb. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2010;40(4):507–12 doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.06.002 20609601

14. Collins R, Burch J, Cranny G, et al. Duplex ultrasonography, magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography for diagnosis and assessment of symptomatic, lower limb peripheral arterial disease: systematic review. BMJ 2007;334(7606):1257 doi: 10.1136/bmj.39217.473275.55 17548364

15. Dachun X, Jue L, Liling Z, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the ankle—brachial index to diagnose peripheral artery disease: a structured review. Vascular Medicine 2010;15(5):361–69 doi: 10.1177/1358863X10378376 20926495

16. Al-Qaisi M, Nott DM, King DH, et al. Ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI): An update for practitioners. Vascular health and risk management 2009;5:833 doi: 10.2147/vhrm.s6759 19851521

17. Vaidya A, Joore MA, ten Cate-Hoek AJ, et al. Screen or not to screen for peripheral arterial disease: guidance from a decision model. BMC Public Health 2014;14(1):89 doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-89 24476213

18. Allen J, Oates CP, Henderson J, et al. Comparison of Lower Limb Arterial Assessments Using Color-Duplex Ultrasound and Ankle/Brachial Pressure Index Measurements. Angiology 1996;47(3):225–32 doi: 10.1177/000331979604700302 8638864

19. Vowden K, Vowden P. Doppler and the ABPI: how good is our understanding? Journal of Wound Care 2001;10(6):197–202 doi: 10.12968/jowc.2001.10.6.26083 12964353

20. Chaudru S, de Müllenheim PY, Le Faucheur A, et al. Training to Perform Ankle-Brachial Index: Systematic Review and Perspectives to Improve Teaching and Learning. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2016;51(2):240–47 doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.09.005 26602321

21. Nietert PJ, Wessell AM, Feifer C, et al. Effect of Terminal Digit Preference on Blood Pressure Measurement and Treatment in Primary Care*. American Journal of Hypertension 2006;19(2):147–52 doi: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.08.016 16448884

22. Wilkes S, Stansby G, Sims A, et al. Peripheral arterial disease: diagnostic challenges and how photoplethysmography may help. British Journal of General Practice 2015;65(635):323–24 doi: 10.3399/bjgp15X685489 26009528

23. Allen J, Overbeck K, Nath AF, et al. A prospective comparison of bilateral photoplethysmography versus the ankle-brachial pressure index for detecting and quantifying lower limb peripheral arterial disease. Journal of Vascular Surgery 2008;47(4):794–802 doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.11.057 18381141

24. Allen J, Hedley S. Simple photoplethysmography pulse encoding technique for communicating the detection of peripheral arterial disease—a proof of concept study. Physiological measurement 2019;40(8):08NT01 doi: 10.1088/1361-6579/ab3545 31479424

25. Curry LA, Krumholz HM, O’Cathain A, et al. Mixed Methods in Biomedical and Health Services Research. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 2013;6(1):119–23 doi: 10.1161/circoutcomes.112.967885 23322807

26. Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ 2009;339 doi: 10.1136/bmj.b3496 19744976

27. NHS England, 2019. 2019/20 General Medical Services (GMS) contract Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF), available at, accessed 13th September 2019

28. Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & quantity 2018;52(4):1893–907

29. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods 2006;18:59–82

30. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psych 2006;3:77–101

31. Morse JM. Critical Analysis of Strategies for Determining Rigor in Qualitative Inquiry. Qualitative Health Research 2015;25(9):1212–22 doi: 10.1177/1049732315588501 26184336

32. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007;19(6):349–57 doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 17872937

33. Rose AF, Schnipper JL, Park ER, et al. Using qualitative studies to improve the usability of an EMR. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 2005;38(1):51–60 doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2004.11.006 15694885

34. De Bleser L, Vincke B, Dobbels F, et al. A New Electronic Monitoring Device to Measure Medication Adherence: Usability of the Helping Hand™. Sensors 2010;10(3):1535–52 doi: 10.3390/s100301535 22294885

35. Munn Z, Jordan Z. The patient experience of high technology medical imaging: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence. Radiography 2011;17(4):323–31

36. Potier L, Abi Khalil C, Mohammedi K, et al. Use and Utility of Ankle Brachial Index in Patients with Diabetes. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery 2011;41(1):110–16 doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.09.020 21095144

37. Bamford C, Olsen K, Davison C, et al. Is there a preference for PET or SPECT brain imaging in diagnosing dementia? The views of people with dementia, carers, and healthy controls. International Psychogeriatrics 2016;28(1):123–31 doi: 10.1017/S1041610215001039 26174876

38. Condon A, Graff L, Elliot L, et al. Acceptance of Colonoscopy Requires more than Test Tolerance. Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology 2008;22(1) doi: 10.1155/2008/107467 18209780

39. Bolvin J, Lancastle D. Medical Waiting Periods: Imminence, Emotions and Coping. Women's Health 2010;6(1):59–69 doi: 10.2217/whe.09.79 20088730

40. Parry O, Peel E, Douglas M, et al. Patients in waiting: a qualitative study of type 2 diabetes patients' perceptions of diagnosis. Family Practice 2004;21(2):131–36 doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh203 15020378

41. Giske T, Gjengedal E. ‘Preparative waiting’ and coping theory with patients going through gastric diagnosis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2007;57(1):87–94 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04082.x 17184377

42. Davies J, Kenkre J, Williams E. Current utility of the ankle-brachial index (ABI) in general practice: implications for its use in cardiovascular disease screening. BMC Family Practice 2014;15(69)

43. Chaudru S, de Müllenheim PY, Le Faucheur A, et al. Ankle brachial index teaching: A call for an international action. International Journal of Cardiology 2015;184(Supplement C):489–91

44. Burns P, Gough S, Bradbury AW. Management of peripheral arterial disease in primary care. BMJ: British Medical Journal 2003;326(7389):584–88 doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7389.584 12637405

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 11