Background/Objectives: Metabolic syndrome (MetSy) comprises a cluster of risk factors—including obesity, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, and impaired glucose metabolism—that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and other conditions. There are close ties between the complications and outcomes of obesity and MetSy. The practical value of MetSy as a distinct diagnosis in primary care remains uncertain. This study aimed to explore general practitioners’ (GPs) perspectives on the utility of MetSy for diagnosing and managing patients in light of evolving concepts in the field of metabolic health. Methods: A qualitative study design was employed, with semi-structured interviews conducted among 15 GPs in rural Western Australia. Participants were recruited via GP networks with convenience and snowball sampling. Transcribed interviews were thematically analysed using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive approach, with iterative coding, theme identification, and member checking to ensure trustworthiness. Results: GPs generally recognized MetSy as a constellation of risk factors that heighten the risk of cardiovascular disease. Insulin resistance was frequently identified as a unifying pathophysiological driver. Nevertheless, most participants did not routinely diagnose MetSy in clinical practice, rather focusing on treating individual component conditions (e.g., obesity, hypertension, dyslipidaemia) due to readily available disease-specific guidelines. Only a minority of GPs actively used the MetSy concept for patient education to highlight interconnected risks and the potential benefits of holistic lifestyle interventions. Paucity of dedicated MetSy management guidelines and uncertainty around diagnostic criteria further hindered routine application of the syndrome in practice. Conclusions: While GPs are aware of MetSy and its broad implications, few use it as a distinct clinical tool. Development of tailored guidelines and expanded educational resources would empower GPs to integrate a more holistic, MetSy-focused approach to patient care.

Background: Chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease and their cardiometabolic risk factors require management, which includes lifestyle interventions. Rural and remote residents are disproportionately affected by these conditions compared to their urban counterparts. Studies have examined barriers to chronic disease and cardiometabolic risk factor management in urban environments, but rural perspectives remain underexplored, especially in Western Australia (WA) with its vast geography. This study examined rural general practitioners’ (GPs) views on barriers and facilitators to chronic disease and cardiometabolic care in rural WA through lifestyle management. Methods: This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with 15 rural WA GPs recruited via rural networks using convenience and snowball sampling. Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis was used to identify patterns and themes within the qualitative data that addressed the study questions. Results: According to rural general practitioners, major barriers to chronic disease and cardiometabolic risk care included geographic isolation, socioeconomic disadvantage and an obesogenic food environment in rural areas, as well as severe time and financial constraints for GPs and workforce shortages with a high turnover and lack of accessible allied health professionals. Facilitators included co-located multidisciplinary teams, case management/health coaching, better remuneration for complex consultations involving preventive care and upstream policy measures, such as improving healthy food affordability and availability. Conclusion: Rural patients face systemic, geographic and socioeconomic barriers that are substantially greater than those in urban settings; these barriers impact GPs caring for their patients with chronic disease and cardiometabolic risk factors. Targeted solutions to these barriers such as attention to workforce issues, investment in lifestyle coaching approaches and having dedicated case managers, could reduce rural–urban inequities in chronic disease outcomes.