Search

Background: In recent years, the healthcare system in the western world has undergone a structural development caused by changes in demography and pattern of disease. In order to maintain the healthcare system cost-effective, new tasks are placed in general practice urging the general practitioners to rethink the working structure without compromising the quality of care. However, there is a substantial variation in the degree to which general practitioners delegate tasks to their staff, and it is not known how these various degrees of task delegation influence the job satisfaction of general practitioners and their staff.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study based on two electronic questionnaires, one for general practitioners and one for their staff. Both questionnaires were divided into two parts, a part exploring the degree of task delegation regarding management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in general practice and a part concerning the general job satisfaction and motivation to work.Results: We found a significant association between perceived "maximal degree" of task delegation in management of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the staff's overall job satisfaction. The odds ratio of the staff's satisfaction with the working environment displayed a tendency that there is also an association with "maximal degree" of task delegation. In the analysis of the general practitioners, the odds ratios of the results indicate that there is a tendency that "maximal degree" of task delegation is associated with overall job satisfaction, satisfaction with the challenges in work, and satisfaction with the working environment.Conclusions: We conclude that a high degree of task delegation is significantly associated with overall job satisfaction of the staff, and that there is a tendency that a high degree of task delegation is associated with the general practitioners' and the staff's satisfaction with the working environment as well as with general practitioners' overall job satisfaction and satisfaction with challenges in work. To qualify future delegation processes within general practice, further research could explore the reasons for our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It has for years been discussed whether practice staff should be involved in patient care in general practice to a higher extent. The research concerning task delegation within general practice is generally increasing, but the literature focusing on its influence on general practitioners' and their staff's job satisfaction appears to be sparse even though job satisfaction is acknowledged as an important factor associated with both patient satisfaction and medical quality of care. Therefore, the overall aim of this study was 1) to review the current research on the relation between task delegation and general practitioners' and their staff's job satisfaction and, additionally, 2) to review the evidence of possible explanations for this relation. Methods: A systematic literature review. We searched the four databases PubMed, Cinahl, Embase, and Scopus systematically. The immediate relevance of the retrieved articles was evaluated by title and abstract by the first author, and papers that seemed to meet the aim of the review were then fully read by first author and last author independently judging the eligibility of content. Results: We included four studies in the review. They explored views and attitudes of the staff, encompassing nurses as well as practice managers. Only one of the included studies also explored general practitioners' views and attitudes, hence making it impossible to establish any syntheses on this relation. According to the studies, the staff's overall attitude towards task delegation was positive and led to increased job satisfaction, probably because task delegation comprised a high degree of work autonomy. Conclusions: The few studies included in our review suggest that task delegation within general practice may be seen by the staff as an overall positive issue contributing to their job satisfaction, primarily due to perceived autonomy in the work. However, because of the small sample size comprising only qualitative studies, and due to the heterogeneity of these studies, we cannot draw unambiguous conclusions although we point towards tendencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Risk communication is an integral part of shared decision-making in health care. In the context of interventions for chronic diseases it represents a particular challenge for all health practitioners. By using two different quantitative formats to communicate risk level and effectiveness of a cholesterol-lowering drug, we posed the research question: how does the format of risk information influence patients' decisions concerning therapy, patients' satisfaction with the communication as well as confidence in the decision. We hypothesise that patients are less prone to accept therapy when the benefits of long-term intervention are presented in terms of prolongation of life (POL) in months compared to the absolute risk reduction (ARR). We hypothesise that patients presented with POL will be more satisfied with the communication and confident in their decision, suggesting understanding of the time-related term. Methods/Design: In 2009 a sample of 328 general practitioners (GPs) in the Region of Southern Denmark was invited to participate in a primary care-based clinical trial among patients making real-life clinical decisions together with their GP. Interested GPs were cluster-randomised to inform patients about cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and the effectiveness of statin therapy using either POL or ARR. The GPs attended a training session before informing their patients. Before training and after the trial period they received a questionnaire about their attitudes to risk communication and the use of numerical information. Patients' redemptions of statin prescriptions will be registered in a regional prescription database to evaluate a possible association between redemption rates and effectiveness format. The Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication And Treatment Decision Making Effectiveness (COMRADE) questionnaire will be used to measure patients' confidence and satisfaction with the risk communication immediately after the conversation with their GPs. Discussion: This randomised clinical trial compares the impact of two effectiveness formats on real-life risk communication between patients and GPs, including affective patient outcomes and actual choices about acceptance of therapy. Though we found difficulties in recruiting GPs, according to the study protocol we have succeeded in engaging sufficient GPs for the trial, enabling us to perform the planned analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of involving patients in decisions on preventive healthcare interventions, little is known about how well patients understand and utilise information provided on the relative benefits from these interventions. The aim of this study was to explore whether lay people can discriminate between preventive interventions when effectiveness is presented in terms of relative risk reduction (RRR), and whether such discrimination is influenced by presentation of baseline risk. Methods: The study was a randomised cross-sectional interview survey of a representative sample (n = 1,519) of lay people with mean age 59 (range 40-98) years in Denmark. In addition to demographic information, respondents were asked to consider a hypothetical drug treatment to prevent heart attack. Its effectiveness was randomly presented as RRR of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 percent, and half of the respondents were presented with quantitative information on the baseline risk of heart attack. The respondents had also been asked whether they were diagnosed with hypercholesterolemia or had experienced a heart attack. Results: In total, 873 (58%) of the respondents consented to the hypothetical treatment. While 49% accepted the treatment when RRR = 10%, the acceptance rate was 58-60% for RRR>10. There was no significant difference in acceptance rates across respondents irrespective of whether they had been presented with quantitative information on baseline risk or not. Conclusion: In this study, lay people's decisions about therapy were only slightly influenced by the magnitude of the effect when it was presented in terms of RRR. The results may indicate that lay people have difficulties in discriminating between levels of effectiveness when they are presented in terms of RRR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Shared decision-making and patients' choice of interventions are areas of increasing importance, not least seen in the light of the fact that chronic conditions are increasing, interventions considered important for public health, and still non-acceptance of especially risk-reducing treatments of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) is prevalent. A better understanding of patients' medication-taking behavior is needed and may be reached by studying the reasons why people accept or decline medication recommendations. The aim of this paper was to identify factors that may influence people's decisions and reasoning for accepting or declining a cardiovascular preventive medication offer., Methods: From a random sample of 4,000 people aged 40-59 years in a Danish population, 1,169 participants were asked to imagine being at increased risk of cardiovascular disease and being offered a preventive medication. After receiving 'complete' information about effectiveness of the medication they were asked whether they would accept medication. Finally, they were asked about reasons for the decision., Results: A total of 725 (67%) of 1,082 participants accepted the medication offer. Even quite large effects of medication (up to 8 percentage points absolute risk reduction) had a smaller impact on acceptance to medication than personal experience with cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, increasing age of the participant and living with a partner were significantly associated with acceptance. Some 45% of the respondents accepting justified their choice as being for health reasons, and they were more likely to be women, live alone, have higher income and higher education levels. Among those who did not accept the medication offer, 56% indicated that they would rather prefer to change lifestyle., Conclusions: Medication effectiveness seems to have a moderate influence on people's decisions to accept preventive medication, while factors such as personal experience with cardiovascular disease may have an equally strong or stronger influence, indicating that practitioners could do well to carefully identify the reasons for their patients' treatment decisions.

Background: For shared decision making doctors need to communicate the effectiveness of therapies such that patients can understand it and discriminate between small and large effects. Previous research indicates that patients have difficulties in understanding risk measures. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that lay people may be able to discriminate between therapies when their effectiveness is expressed in terms of postponement of an adverse disease event., Methods: In 2004 a random sample of 1,367 non-institutionalized Danes aged 40+ was interviewed in person. The participants were asked for demographic information and asked to consider a hypothetical preventive drug treatment. The respondents were randomized to the magnitude of treatment effectiveness (heart attack postponement of 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 4 years and 8 years) and subsequently asked whether they would take such a therapy. They were also asked whether they had hypercholesterolemia or had experienced a heart attack., Results: In total 58% of the respondents consented to the hypothetical treatment. The proportions accepting treatment were 39%, 52%, 56%, 64%, 67% and 73% when postponement was 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 2 years, 4 years and 8 years respectively. Participants who thought that the effectiveness information was difficult to understand, were less likely to consent to therapy (p = 0.004)., Conclusion: Lay people can discriminate between levels of treatment effectiveness when they are presented in terms of postponement of an adverse event. The results indicate that such postponement is a comprehensible measure of effectiveness.