Search

Clinical trials have not shown a consistent benefit of treating bronchitis with antibiotics. Many physicians, however, treat acute bronchitis with antibiotics because of the possibility of Mycoplasma pneumoniae or other pathogens. The objectives of this study were to determine the effectiveness of erythromycin treatment in patients with acute bronchitis and to determine whether a newly developed rapid M pneumoniae antibody test is useful in predicting which patients will respond to therapy.We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial at three primary care centers in North Carolina. A convenience sample of 140 patients presenting with acute bronchitis were tested for M pneumoniae, 91 of whom were treated with either erythromycin 250 mg four times daily for 10 days or an identical-appearing placebo.Patients treated with erythromycin missed an average of only 0.81 +/- 1.1 days of work compared with 2.16 +/- 3.2 days for placebo-treated patients (P.02). There were no significant differences in cough, use of cough medicine, general feeling of well-being, or chest congestion between the erythromycin and placebo groups. Twenty-five percent of the patients tested positive for M pneumoniae. There were no differences in response to erythromycin based on whether the patient had a positive test for M pneumoniae.Erythromycin is effective in significantly reducing lost time from work, but it is not effective in reducing cough or other symptoms in patients with acute bronchitis, regardless of the outcome of the M pneumoniae antibody test.

Studies suggest that family physicians and other generalist physicians practice differently than specialists. This study was performed to determine whether practice patterns and outcomes differ for women with low-risk pregnancies who obtain maternity care from family physicians as compared with those who are cared for by obstetricians.A retrospective chart review was performed at five sites across the United States. Women who presented for elective repeat cesarean section or who had any one of 14 high-risk conditions were excluded from the analysis. The final sample analyzed included 4865 women. Family physicians managed the labor of 2000 of these women, and obstetricians managed 2865.During intrapartum care, women managed by family physicians were less likely to have their labor induced (8.6% vs 10.4%, P = .03), receive oxytocin augmentation (14.9% vs 17.8%, P = .006), or receive epidural anesthesia (5.4% vs 17.0%, P.001) as compared with those managed by obstetricians. Delivery outcomes showed that patients of family physicians were less likely to have an episiotomy during vaginal delivery (53.7% vs 74.5%, P.001) and a lower frequency of cesarean section deliveries (9.3% vs 16.0%, P.001), especially for cephalopelvic disproportion. When adjusted for potential confounders, rates for cesarean section and episiotomy for obstetricians were still significantly higher than those of family physicians. For neonatal outcomes (low 1-minute Apgar score, neonatal intensive care unit admission, birth trauma, or neonatal infection), no significant differences were found between the care delivered by obstetricians and family physicians.Women obtaining maternity care from family physicians were less likely to receive epidural anesthesia during labor or an episiotomy after vaginal births, and had a lower rate of cesarean section delivery rates, primarily because of a decreased frequency in the diagnosis of cephalopelvic disproportion. Differences between outcomes persisted after adjustment for potential confounders such as parity, previous cesarean delivery, and use of epidural anesthesia during labor. No differences between the two physician groups with respect to neonatal outcomes were found.

Physicians rarely question patients about their religious beliefs. This lack of inquiry may be contrary to patients' wishes and detrimental to patient care. This study examines whether patients want physicians to discuss religious beliefs with them.Two hundred three family practice adult inpatients at two hospitals were interviewed regarding their views on the relationship between religion and health.Many patients expressed positive attitudes toward physician involvement in spiritual issues. Seventy-seven percent said physicians should consider patients' spiritual needs, 37% wanted their physicians to discuss religious beliefs with them more frequently, and 48% wanted their physicians to pray with them. However, 68% said their physician had never discussed religious beliefs with them.This study supports the hypothesis that although many patients desire more frequent and more in-depth discussions about religious issues with their physicians, physicians generally do not discuss these issues with their patients.

Recent media attention has focused on patients who use faith healers to care for their medical problems. Many people who use faith healers also consult physicians. This study was done to learn more about how often physicians see patients who are involved in faith healing, and to learn more about physicians' attitudes about, and experiences with, faith healing.A 1-page questionnaire was mailed to 1025 family physicians in seven states; 594 participated, for a response rate of 59%.Approximately one half (52%) of the physicians were aware of at least one patient in their practice who had had a faith-healing experience. Most physicians came in contact with such patients no more frequently than once a year. Fifty-five percent agreed and 20% disagreed that reliance on faith healers often leads to serious medical problems. However, 44% thought that physicians and faith healers can work together to cure some patients, and 23% believed that faith healers divinely heal some people whom physicians cannot help.These results suggest that family physicians are infrequently aware of faith-healing beliefs and experiences among their patients. Family physicians were divided in their views about faith healing, with a majority expressing skepticism about faith healing and a sizeable minority favorable toward it.

Faith healers have become more visible as an alternative to traditional medicine because of the growth of television evangelism. The extent to which patients engage in alternative therapies such as faith healing, however, is not fully known. To further explore patients' involvement in faith healing, a cross-sectional survey was administered to 207 patients in one rural family practice. Most respondents (58 percent) reported that faith healers are "quacks," but 29 percent believed that faith healers can help some people who physicians cannot help. Twenty-one percent had attended a faith-healing service. Six percent stated they had actually been healed by faith healers, and 15 percent reported they personally knew someone who had been healed. Participation in faith-healing services was significantly higher among blacks (P less than .01) and those with less than a high school education (P less than .01). The finding that many patients embrace faith healing has implications for traditional family practice and may explain why patients sometimes reject medical treatment. Physicians need to be sensitive to patients' beliefs about "faith," and must determine the extent to which patients reject the scientific approach before physicians can become effective "healers."

Acute soft tissue injuries create pain and limitation of function. Treatment requires analgesia and time for full recovery. Acetaminophen with codeine (650 mg plus 60 mg, respectively, every 4 to 6 hours) is used frequently as the analgesic of choice. Diflunisal (1,000 mg initially then 500 mg twice a day) vs acetaminophen with codeine was prospectively studied in the treatment of acute mild to moderate pain from soft tissue injuries. Thirty-five patients with acute strains, sprains, or low back pain were randomized to treatment (17 acetaminophen with codeine vs 18 diflunisal). Both groups were similar in the amount of pain and type of injury at initiation of therapy. Patient pain rating went from 3.3 +/- 0.6 to 1.6 +/- 1.5 for acetaminophen with codeine and from 3.3 +/- 0.6 to 1.3 +/- 1.1 for diflunisal. However, 65 percent of acetaminophen with codeine patients experienced side effects, with 35 percent of these patients stopping the medication because of intolerable side effects. In the diflunisal group, 28 percent of the patients experienced side effects and 5 percent had to stop the medication early. Diflunisal was found to be an effective analgesic in mild to moderate pain of acute soft tissue injuries, and caused fewer and more tolerable side effects than did acetaminophen with codeine.