Search

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: Attitudes toward environmental risks may be a source of bias in environmental health studies because concerns about environmental hazards may influence self-reported outcomes. Objective: The main aim was to assess whether earlier observed associations between proximity to goat farms and self-reported pneumonia were biased by participants’ attitude toward farming. Methods: We developed an attitude-score for 2,457 participants of the Dutch Livestock Farming and Neighbouring Residents’ Health Study (veehouderij en gezondheid omwonenden) by factor analysis of 13 questionnaire items related to attitude toward livestock farming. Linear regression analysis was used to assess associations between attitude and potential determinants. The effect of attitude on the association between goat farm proximity and pneumonia was analyzed by evaluating (1) misclassification of the outcome, (2) effect modification by attitude, and (3) exclusion of participants reporting health problems due to farms in their environment. Results: In general, the study population had a positive attitude toward farming, especially if participants were more familiar with farming. Older participants, females, ex-smokers, and higher-educated individuals had a more negative attitude. Both self-reported respiratory symptoms and exposure to livestock farms were associated with a more negative attitude. Misclassification of self-reported pneumonia was nondifferential with regard to participants’ attitude. Furthermore, no indication was found that the association between proximity to goat farms and pneumonia was modified by attitude. Excluding subjects who attributed their health symptoms to livestock farms did also not change the association. Conclusions: The association between goat farm proximity and pneumonia was not substantially biased by study participants’ attitude toward livestock farming.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: The Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study aims to analyse and compare how primary health care systems in 35 countries perform in terms of quality, costs and equity. This article answers the question 'How can the organisation and delivery of primary health care and its outcomes be measured through surveys of general practitioners (GPs) and patients?' It will also deal with the process of pooling questions and the subsequent development and application of exclusion criteria to arrive at a set of appropriate questions for a broad international comparative study. METHODS: The development of the questionnaires consisted of four phases: a search for existing validated questionnaires, the classification and selection of relevant questions, shortening of the questionnaires in three consensus rounds and the pilot survey. Consensus was reached on the basis of exclusion criteria (e.g. the applicability for international comparison). Based on the pilot survey, comprehensibility increased and the number of questions was further restricted, as the questionnaires were too long. RESULTS: Four questionnaires were developed: one for GPs, one for patients about their experiences with their GP, another for patients about what they consider important, and a practice questionnaire. The GP questionnaire mainly focused on the structural aspects (e.g. economic conditions) and care processes (e.g. comprehensiveness of services of primary care). The patient experiences questionnaire focused on the care processes and outcomes (e.g. how do patients experience access to care?). The questionnaire about what patients consider important was complementary to the experiences questionnaire, as it enabled weighing the answers from the latter. Finally, the practice questionnaire included questions on practice characteristics. DISCUSSION: The QUALICOPC researchers have developed four questionnaires to characterise the organisation and delivery of primary health care and to compare and analyse the outcomes. Data collected with these instruments will allow us not only to show in detail the variation in process and outcomes of primary health care, but also to explain the differences from features of the (primary) health care system.

BACKGROUND: Although children are frequently referred to specialists, detailed information on referral patterns of them is scarce. Even less information is available on how referral patterns evolve over time.AIMS: To examine current referral patterns for children aged 0-17 years and compare these with referral patterns reported for 1987.DESIGN OF STUDY: Data were analysed from two national cross-sectional surveys, performed in 2001 (91 general practices) and in 1987 (103 general practices).SETTING: Dutch general practice.METHOD: All new referrals to specialists were assessed by age, sex, International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) category, specialty referred to, and specific episodes of disease. Referral measures were quantified as new referrals per 1000 person-years and per 100 new episodes, a measure of likelihood of a young person with a specific diagnosis to be referred. Rates in 2001 were compared with those from 1987.RESULTS: Referral rates decreased from 138 per 1000 person-years in 1987, to 84 per 1000 person-years in 2001. Age differences in referral rates were similar in both surveys. Compared with 1987, more boys than girls were referred to specialists. The overall likelihood of a condition being referred decreased from 8.0 per 100 episodes in 1987 to 6.5 per 100 episodes in 2001. Reasons for referral had also changed by 2001, particularly for the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) specialist and ophthalmologist. Moreover, referral rates for acute otitis media, refractive disorders, and vision problems decreased two- to fourfold in 2001.CONCLUSION: Presently, Dutch general practitioners tend to manage more health problems themselves and refer less young people to specialists.