Search

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES Prevention offers the most cost-effective long-term strategy for cancer control. The objective of this study was to ascertain opinions, attitudes, and professional practices towards cancer prevention among primary care professionals and to assess differences between family physicians (FP) and nursing professionals (NP). METHOD A cross-sectional study was performed in 2012 in the Community of Madrid. A random sample of 3586 professionals received an online questionnaire about opinions/attitudes, training, and interventions in cancer prevention. The chi-square test was used to analyse the association of the profession with all the variables. Factors associated with the usual practice of individual, group, and community interventions were analysed using multivariate logistic regression, with separate models for FP and NP. RESULTS The response rate was 39.4% (N = 1413). Approximately 90% of the participants attributed "sufficient/high" utility to individualized counselling. NP attributed higher utility to group and community interventions than FP (70.1% vs 60.1% and 64.9% vs 57.7%, respectively, P-value

Rationale, aims and objectives Online surveys have several advantages, but a low response rate is common and it is uncertain how results are affected. Response inducement techniques can be used to overcome this problem. The objectives of this study were to describe the percentage of change in the response rate after reminders and to analyse the characteristics associated with non-response and late response based on the survey results, as well as by applying archival and extrapolation techniques. Method In the Autonomous Community of Madrid, an online questionnaire about cancer prevention was sent to a random sample of primary care health professionals (3586 physicians and nurses). Two reminders were sent later. The percentage of change in response rates after reminders, global and by demographic and health care characteristics of participants; and factors associated with non-response and late response were analysed using response rates and odds ratios (ORs). Results After the reminders, the response rate increased from 22.6% to 32.9% and to 39.4%. Non-response was associated with age [OR: 3.14; confidence interval (CI) 95%: 2.23–4.42 for aged >60 years], gender and functional area. Further, a higher response rate after reminders was observed in professionals with heavier workloads (OR: 1.46; CI 95%: 1.08–1.97) and in those who stated a lower relevance of cancer prevention in primary care. Conclusions After electronic reminders, the response rate increased, especially among professionals with the highest workloads and a minor interest in the survey topic. However, possible bias associated with non-response remains and the factors behind this should be examined in future research.

Rationale and objectives Late diagnosis of HIV infection is a public health problem. Framed by the international guidelines for improving HIV testing, in 2014, the Spanish Ministry of Health published a guide of recommendations to promote early diagnosis of HIV in health care settings. In the Community of Madrid, in order to implement these recommendations, we defined 3 new HIV testing strategies in primary health care. The objectives of this study were to know the interest of professionals and the acceptability for patients towards these strategies. Methods We performed a quasi-experimental study to assess the feasibility of the implementation of new strategies (indicator condition, risk based, and universal offer) to promote early detection of HIV infection in the framework of the ESTVIH project. The centres participating in this project were randomly chosen among centres located in the health areas with the highest incidence of HIV infection. The feasibility was assessed in 6 centres. We considered outcomes by strategy in relation to the participation of professionals (family physician and nursing) and patients. Results Overall, 56.9% of eligible professionals agreed to take part in the study; however, the percentage of professionals who recruited patients was 25.9%. This percentage was higher in the indicator condition strategy (47.2%, versus 18.5% in the universal offer and 14.3% in the risk-based strategy, P-value