Search

Background: A personalised, smoking cessation message was successfully delivered in Australian community pharmacies to motivate behavioural change in young smoking adults. Objective: The purpose of this pilot study was to test the acceptability and effectiveness of the innovative, proven smoking cessation intervention to another population of young adults with a higher prevalence of smoking and associated morbidities. Methods: Ninety eight university students in Paris, France were recruited to a pilot study (50 intervention: 48 control). All students received smoking cessation counselling sessions and half also received a visual demonstration of themselves, both as a lifelong smoker and non-smoker. Results: There was no statistical significant difference between the groups in smoking dependence at recruitment. At the three month follow-up, the proportion who had attempted to quit smoking were 37% (control) vs 46% (intervention). These percentages suggested a positive result for the intervention, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.39). Conclusion: This is one of the first studies conducted in France using visual demonstrations combined with healthcare counselling to promote smoking cessation amongst young adult smokers. Further research, recruiting from the general French public, is needed to better understand if the innovative personalised health message can motivate young French adult smokers to quit.

Contains fulltext : 110491.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Primary care has an important role in cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and a minimum size of scale of primary care practices may be needed for efficient delivery of CVRM . We examined CVRM in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in primary care and explored the impact of practice size. METHODS: In an observational study in 8 countries we sampled CHD patients in primary care practices and collected data from electronic patient records. Practice samples were stratified according to practice size and urbanisation; patients were selected using coded diagnoses when available. CVRM was measured on the basis of internationally validated quality indicators. In the analyses practice size was defined in terms of number of patients registered of visiting the practice. We performed multilevel regression analyses controlling for patient age and sex. RESULTS: We included 181 practices (63% of the number targeted). Two countries included a convenience sample of practices. Data from 2960 CHD patients were available. Some countries used methods supplemental to coded diagnoses or other inclusion methods introducing potential inclusion bias. We found substantial variation on all CVRM indicators across practices and countries. We computed aggregated practice scores as percentage of patients with a positive outcome. Rates of risk factor recording varied from 55% for physical activity as the mean practice score across all practices (sd 32%) to 94% (sd 10%) for blood pressure. Rates for reaching treatment targets for systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol were 46% (sd 21%), 86% (sd 12%) and 48% (sd 22%) respectively. Rates for providing recommended cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet drugs were around 80%, and 70% received influenza vaccination. Practice size was not associated to indicator scores with one exception: in Slovenia larger practices performed better. Variation was more related to differences between practices t

Contains fulltext : 110491.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: Primary care has an important role in cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) and a minimum size of scale of primary care practices may be needed for efficient delivery of CVRM . We examined CVRM in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) in primary care and explored the impact of practice size. METHODS: In an observational study in 8 countries we sampled CHD patients in primary care practices and collected data from electronic patient records. Practice samples were stratified according to practice size and urbanisation; patients were selected using coded diagnoses when available. CVRM was measured on the basis of internationally validated quality indicators. In the analyses practice size was defined in terms of number of patients registered of visiting the practice. We performed multilevel regression analyses controlling for patient age and sex. RESULTS: We included 181 practices (63% of the number targeted). Two countries included a convenience sample of practices. Data from 2960 CHD patients were available. Some countries used methods supplemental to coded diagnoses or other inclusion methods introducing potential inclusion bias. We found substantial variation on all CVRM indicators across practices and countries. We computed aggregated practice scores as percentage of patients with a positive outcome. Rates of risk factor recording varied from 55% for physical activity as the mean practice score across all practices (sd 32%) to 94% (sd 10%) for blood pressure. Rates for reaching treatment targets for systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol were 46% (sd 21%), 86% (sd 12%) and 48% (sd 22%) respectively. Rates for providing recommended cholesterol lowering and antiplatelet drugs were around 80%, and 70% received influenza vaccination. Practice size was not associated to indicator scores with one exception: in Slovenia larger practices performed better. Variation was more related to differences between practices t

Contains fulltext : 47544.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVES: To develop a framework for general practice management made up of quality indicators shared by six European countries. METHODS: Two-round postal Delphi questionnaire in the setting of general practice in Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Six national expert panels, each consisting of 10 members, primarily primary care practitioners and experts in the field of quality in primary care participated in the study. The main outcome measures were: (a) a European framework with indicators for the organization of primary care; and (b) ratings of the face validity of the usefulness of the indicators by expert panels in six countries. RESULTS: Agreement was reached about a definition of practice management across five domains (infrastructure, staff, information, finance, and quality and safety), and a common set of indicators for the organization of general practice. The panellist response rate was 95%. Sixty-two indicators (37%) were rated face valid by all six panels. Examples include out of hours service, accessibility, the content of doctors' bags and staff involvement in quality improvement. No indicators were rated invalid by all six panels. CONCLUSIONS: It proved to be possible to develop a European set of indicators for assessing the quality of practice management, despite the differences in health care systems and cultures in the six different countries. These indicators will now be used in a quality assessment procedure of practice management in nine European countries. While organizational indicators are part of the new GMS contract in the UK, this research shows that many practice management issues within primary care are also of relevance in other European countries.

Contains fulltext : 47544.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVES: To develop a framework for general practice management made up of quality indicators shared by six European countries. METHODS: Two-round postal Delphi questionnaire in the setting of general practice in Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Six national expert panels, each consisting of 10 members, primarily primary care practitioners and experts in the field of quality in primary care participated in the study. The main outcome measures were: (a) a European framework with indicators for the organization of primary care; and (b) ratings of the face validity of the usefulness of the indicators by expert panels in six countries. RESULTS: Agreement was reached about a definition of practice management across five domains (infrastructure, staff, information, finance, and quality and safety), and a common set of indicators for the organization of general practice. The panellist response rate was 95%. Sixty-two indicators (37%) were rated face valid by all six panels. Examples include out of hours service, accessibility, the content of doctors' bags and staff involvement in quality improvement. No indicators were rated invalid by all six panels. CONCLUSIONS: It proved to be possible to develop a European set of indicators for assessing the quality of practice management, despite the differences in health care systems and cultures in the six different countries. These indicators will now be used in a quality assessment procedure of practice management in nine European countries. While organizational indicators are part of the new GMS contract in the UK, this research shows that many practice management issues within primary care are also of relevance in other European countries.

Contains fulltext : 47544.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), OBJECTIVES: To develop a framework for general practice management made up of quality indicators shared by six European countries. METHODS: Two-round postal Delphi questionnaire in the setting of general practice in Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Six national expert panels, each consisting of 10 members, primarily primary care practitioners and experts in the field of quality in primary care participated in the study. The main outcome measures were: (a) a European framework with indicators for the organization of primary care; and (b) ratings of the face validity of the usefulness of the indicators by expert panels in six countries. RESULTS: Agreement was reached about a definition of practice management across five domains (infrastructure, staff, information, finance, and quality and safety), and a common set of indicators for the organization of general practice. The panellist response rate was 95%. Sixty-two indicators (37%) were rated face valid by all six panels. Examples include out of hours service, accessibility, the content of doctors' bags and staff involvement in quality improvement. No indicators were rated invalid by all six panels. CONCLUSIONS: It proved to be possible to develop a European set of indicators for assessing the quality of practice management, despite the differences in health care systems and cultures in the six different countries. These indicators will now be used in a quality assessment procedure of practice management in nine European countries. While organizational indicators are part of the new GMS contract in the UK, this research shows that many practice management issues within primary care are also of relevance in other European countries.