Search

Objective: To explore general practitioners' experiences and reflections on how the current Norwegian guideline for screening for gestational diabetes affects their clinical practice. Design: A qualitive study in which data were collected through semi-structured focus group interviews and analyzed thematically. Setting and subjects: Five focus groups conducted in 2020 among GPs in Norway; three interviews took place face-to-face and two were held digitally. The total number of participants was 31. Results: GPs acknowledged the potential benefits of more extensive screening, but had concerns about the medicalization of pregnancy, stating that some women experienced considerable anxiety. The GPs expressed doubts about the guideline's evidence base but differed in how they interpreted what the guideline was asking them to do. Some offered eligible women the opportunity to be screened, while other set up a screening appointment without consulting the women first. For some, fear of incrimination made them recommend screening without being convinced that it was the right thing for the patient. Conclusions: It is unclear whether the guideline for gestational diabetes requires GPs to recommend screening to pregnant women or if they should provide neutral information about the availability of screening. This ambiguity should be addressed, and the guideline evaluated against the core principles of general practice. KEY POINTS: The Norwegian guideline for gestational diabetes (2017) increased the proportion of pregnant women eligible for screening and spurred considerable debate. The GPs in this study expressed concerns about the lack of evidence and the consequences of screening more women for gestational diabetes. It is unclear to GPs whether they are required to recommend screening to pregnant women or just inform them of its availability. The guideline should be evaluated to better account for the benefits, burdens and costs of screening and any subsequent treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Private health insurance is becoming more common in Norway. The aim of this study was to investigate GPs' opinions on private health insurance, and their experiences from consultations where health insurance can affect decisions about referring. Design: A web based cross-sectional survey. Setting: Norwegian general practice. Subjects: All GPs in Norway were in 2019 invited to participate in an online survey. Main outcome measures: The GPs' opinions and experiences regarding health insurance were reported as proportions. Multiple logistic regression was used to test associations between how frequently GPs refer patients without further considerations and variables concerning their characteristics, opinions, and experiences. Results: Of 1,309 GPs (response rate 27%), 93% stated that private health insurance raises the risk of overtreatment and 90% considered such insurance to contribute to inequality in health. Frequently being pressured to refer in the absence of a medical indication was reported by 42%. Moreover, 28% often or always chose to refer patients without further consideration, and this was associated with perceptions of pressure with an adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of 3.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.73–5.29, and unpleasant reactions from patients following refusals (AOR 1.63, 95% CI 1.14–2.33). Conclusion: Although most participating GPs associated private health insurance with overtreatment and inequality in health, more than one in four choose to refer without further consideration. GPs' experience of pressure to refer and negative reactions from patients when they consider referrals not to be medically indicated, raises the risk of medical overuse for patients holding private health insurance. KEY POINTS: Although most GPs had negative opinions regarding private health insurance, more than one quarter frequently referred insurance holders without further considerations. Perceived pressure and negative reactions from patients were associated with accommodating requests rather than acting as a gatekeeper. Private health insurance challenges the gatekeeping role of GPs in Norway and raises the risk of medical overuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]