| 1. |
- Harris, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
Primary care practitioners' diagnostic action when the patient may have cancer : an exploratory vignette study in 20 European countries
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 10:10, s. 035678-035678
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: Cancer survival rates vary widely between European countries, with differences in timeliness of diagnosis thought to be one key reason. There is little evidence on the way in which different healthcare systems influence primary care practitioners' (PCPs) referral decisions in patients who could have cancer.This study aimed to explore PCPs' diagnostic actions (whether or not they perform a key diagnostic test and/or refer to a specialist) in patients with symptoms that could be due to cancer and how they vary across European countries. DESIGN: A primary care survey. PCPs were given vignettes describing patients with symptoms that could indicate cancer and asked how they would manage these patients. The likelihood of taking immediate diagnostic action (a diagnostic test and/or referral) in the different participating countries was analysed. Comparisons between the likelihood of taking immediate diagnostic action and physician characteristics were calculated. SETTING: Centres in 20 European countries with widely varying cancer survival rates. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2086 PCPs answered the survey question, with a median of 72 PCPs per country. RESULTS: PCPs' likelihood of immediate diagnostic action at the first consultation varied from 50% to 82% between countries. PCPs who were more experienced were more likely to take immediate diagnostic action than their peers. CONCLUSION: When given vignettes of patients with a low but significant possibility of cancer, more than half of PCPs across Europe would take diagnostic action, most often by ordering diagnostic tests. However, there are substantial between-country variations.
|
|
| 2. |
- Petrazzuoli, Ferdinando, et al.
(författare)
-
Unburdening dementia a basic social process grounded theory - based on a primary care physician survey from 25 countries
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care. - : Taylor & Francis Group. - 0281-3432 .- 1502-7724. ; 38:3, s. 253-264
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective To explore dementia management from a primary care physician perspective. Design One-page seven-item multiple choice questionnaire; free text space for every item; final narrative question of a dementia case story. Inductive explorative grounded theory analysis. Derived results in cluster analyses. Appropriateness of dementia drugs assessed by tertiary care specialist. Setting Twenty-five European General Practice Research Network member countries. Subjects Four hundred and forty-five key informant primary care physician respondents of which 106 presented 155 case stories. Main outcome measures Processes and typologies of dementia management. Proportion of case stories with drug treatment and treatment according to guidelines. Results Unburdeningdementia - a basic social process - explained physicians' dementia management according to a grounded theory analysis using both qualitative and quantitative data. Unburdening starts withRecognizingthe dementia burden byBurden IdentificationandBurden Assessmentfollowed byBurden Relief. Drugs to relieve the dementia burden were reported for 130 of 155 patients; acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or memantine treatment in 89 of 155 patients - 60% appropriate according to guidelines and 40% outside of guidelines. More Central and Northern primary care physicians were allowed to prescribe, and more were engaged in dementia management than Eastern and Mediterranean physicians according to cluster analyses. Physicians typically identified and assessed the dementia burden and then tried to relieve it, commonly by drug prescriptions, but also by community health and home help services, mentioned in more than half of the case stories. Conclusions Primary care physician dementia management was explained by anUnburdeningprocess with the goal to relieve the dementia burden, mainly by drugs often prescribed outside of guideline indications. Implications:Unique data about dementia management by European primary care physicians to inform appropriate stakeholders.
|
|
| 3. |
- Roulet, Céline, et al.
(författare)
-
Managing hypertension in frail oldest-old-The role of guideline use by general practitioners from 29 countries
- 2020
-
Ingår i: PLoS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 15:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The best management of hypertension in frail oldest-old (≥80 years of age) remains unclear and we still lack guidelines that provide specific recommendations. Our study aims to investigate guideline use in general practitioners (GPs) and to examine if guideline use relates to different decisions when managing hypertension in frail oldest-old. DESIGN/SETTING: Cross-sectional study among currently active GPs from 29 countries using a case-vignettes survey. METHODS: GPs participated in a survey with case-vignettes of frail oldest-olds varying in systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels and cardiovascular disease (CVD). GPs from 26 European countries and from Brazil, Israel and New Zealand were invited. We compared the percentage of GPs reporting using guidelines per country and further stratified on the most frequently mentioned guidelines. To adjust for patient characteristics (SBP, CVD and GPs' sex, years of experience, prevalence of oldest-old and location of their practice), we used a mixed-effects regression model accounting for clustering within countries. RESULTS: Overall, 2,543 GPs from 29 countries were included. 59.4% of them reported to use guidelines. Higher guideline use was found in female (p = 0.031) and less-experienced GPs (p<0.001). Across countries, we found a large variation in self-reported guideline use, ranging from 25% to 90% of the GPs, but there was no difference in hypertension treatment decisions in frail oldest-old patients between GPs that did not use and GPs that used guidelines, irrespective of the guidelines they used. CONCLUSION: Many GPs reported using guidelines to manage hypertension in frail oldest-old patients, however guideline users did not decide differently from non-users concerning hypertension treatment decisions. Instead of focusing on the fact if GPs use guidelines or not, we as a scientific community should put an emphasis on what guidelines suggest in frail and oldest-old patients.
|
|
