Search

Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common mental health disorders among children, and it is rapidly surging among adults as well. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of community neurologists and psychiatrists as well as general practitioners and paediatricians in prescribing ADHD medications in Germany and whether their role has changed over the 10-year period from 2008 and 2018., Methods: In this secondary analysis of anonymized prescribing data, we calculated the absolute and relative frequencies of ADHD prescriptions by neurologists and psychiatrists, summarized as specialists, and family physicians and paediatricians, summarized as generalists, and how it has changed during the years 2008 to 2018., Results: A total of 620 practices delivered data on 77,504 patients diagnosed with ADHD, 38% (29,396/77,504) of them had received a prescription for ADHD medicine at least once in the study period. Over time, we observed a shift from generalists to specialists. While 59% of patients received their prescription from a generalist and 41% from a specialist in 2008, there was reverse in the ratio in 2018: only 37% received their medication from a generalist and the vast majority (63%) from a specialist. This trend was particularly evident among adults: 58% of them received their ADHD medication from a specialist in 2008, but 80% in 2018. The proportion of children and adolescents who received their prescriptions from a specialist rose from 38% to 51% over the same period., Conclusion: There is a shift in drug prescription away from generalists to specialists, without any discussion of advantages or disadvantages so far. However, this would be desirable, not least because specialists alone may not have sufficient resources to care for all ADHD patients., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and Objective: Benzodiazepines and Z-drugs are prescribed to a considerable extent as private prescription also for persons insured by a statutory health insurance (SHI), with formerly large differences between East and West Germany. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether these differences still exist today., Method: This secondary data analysis used anonymized prescription data from general practitioners (GPs), community neurologists, and psychiatrists. SHI-insured patients with at least one prescription for a benzodiazepine or Z-substance between 2014 and 2020 were included. Differences between East and West Germany in the proportion of private prescriptions were the central outcome. Multiple regression analyses were performed to test whether the factors region (eastern vs. western Germany) and specialist group (GPs vs. neurologists/psychiatrists) were statistically significant predictors of the proportion of private prescriptions - taking into account the age and gender composition of patients in a practice., Results: From 867 practices, 2,200,446 prescriptions for Z-substances, benzodiazepine anxiolytics, and benzodiazepine hypnotics/sedatives were evaluated. More than 38% of these prescriptions were issued as private prescriptions: 53.6% in eastern Germany and 34.8% in western Germany. For Z-substances, the proportion of private prescriptions was particularly high (70.7% in eastern and 43.0% in western Germany). GPs issued private prescriptions far more frequently than neurologists and psychiatrists. The proportion of private prescriptions increased during the study period, comparatively strongly in the western states (from 33% to 39%) and slightly in the eastern states (from 53% to 54%). In the multivariate model, practice area (east/west) and specialist group were similarly strong predictors of the extent of private prescriptions, especially for Z-substances., Conclusion: Contrary to a general alignment in life expectancy, morbidity risks, and health behaviour in East and West Germany, there is, despite convergence, still a significant difference in the proportion of private prescriptions for benzodiazepines and especially for Z-substances between the two regions. The groups of physicians who mainly prescribe these substances, namely neurologists and psychiatrists, on the one hand, and GPs, on the other, also differ considerably in the proportion of their private prescriptions for these substances., Competing Interests: Wir danken der Fa. IQVIA (Frankfurt), die uns Zugang zu Teilen ihrer Datenbank gewährte. Professor Karel Kostev, wissenschaftlicher Leiter von IQVIA, unterstützte uns bei der Nutzung der Datenbank. Ein Vertrag garantierte den Autoren Unabhängigkeit beim Studiendesign, bei der Analyse und Interpretation der Daten, beim Verfassen des Berichts und bei der Entscheidung, den Artikel zur Veröffentlichung einzureichen.Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background: Routinely recorded data from everyday ambulatory medical care are urgently needed for health services and systems research, but this faces major limitations in Germany. In 2018, European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and new German Federal Data Protection Act (FDPA) become effective. Via simulated real-life scenarios it may be possible to find out if access to and utilization of routine data for research becomes easier or faces additional obstacles., Methods: General practitioners, information scientists, data trustees and privacy protection experts create concepts, processes and standards for lawful handling of routinely recorded data for secondary research and study their feasibility in 2 scenarios (anonymous and pseudonymous data utilization). From the point of view of technical assessment and privacy protection, technical and organizational obstacles are presented as well as the legal framework., Results: Outdated software interface, insufficient maintenance by software vendors, burdens associated with organization and cost as well as poor IT standards place obstacles to systematic and longitudinal use of healthcare routine data. Future pan-European law for privacy protection will allow research utilization of ambulatory data in principle. However, there are persisting conflicts between individual (fundamental right of privacy protection) and public interests (research for quality and efficiency of public spending; European market's free exchange of goods and services). This becomes evident especially when using routine data via pseudonymization., Discussion: Neither insurmountable hurdles by privacy protecting law nor a threat from Big Data are currently the major obstacles to secondary utilization of routine data but real-life problems at the technology and operational level. GDPR and FDPA that have become into effect in May 2018 have improved European legal unity and transparency of patients' interests. Tension between privacy protection of data on an identified or identifiable person and scientific utilization and exchange of such data in public interest necessitates additional legal clarification. One possible solution, an advanced and ready-to-use software interface, awaits implementation., Competing Interests: Die Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Aim: Defined daily doses (DDD) are used to analyse drug utilisation. For frequently prescribed drug groups, we studied to what extent the DDD correspond to the average prescribed daily doses (PDD)., Methods: We analysed all drugs prescribed for more than three months to insured of a large health insurance fund in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, one federal state in Germany. PDD for plain ACE inhibitors, selective beta-antagonists and some antidiabetics (sulfonylurea compounds) were calculated and compared with their DDD., Results: During the study period, about 38 500 patients received continuous prescriptions of each ACE inhibitors or selective beta-antagonists, and about 9 000 of sulfonylurea compounds. PDD differed from DDD in varying degrees. For ACE inhibitors, PDD ranged between 1.5 DDD (for captopril) and 3.5 (for ramipril). The PDD for beta antagonists were on average 0.9 DDD, similar for bisoprolol (0.8 DDD) and metoprolol (0.9 DDD). As for oral antidiabetics, doctors prescribed 1.0 DDD glibenclamid per day and patient and 2.0 DDD glimepirid. Depending on differences between DDD and PDD, real daily costs for drug therapy differed from the theoretical costs per DDD, for example in the case of ramipril they were 0.24 euros compared to 0.07 euros., Conclusion: The PDD were much higher than the DDD for several frequently prescribed drugs. Consequently, the daily drug costs exceeded the drug costs based on DDD. Evaluations of drug costs on the basis for DDD require careful interpretation. Moreover, the number of DDD alone is not a valid measurement for the appropriateness of drug therapy and can only give a rough estimate of the number of patients treated, at least for the drug groups in this study., (Copyright Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart . New York)

Background: Most episodes of headache are not presented to doctors but are treated by self-management. Especially in these cases, the Internet has become an increasingly important source of health-care information. The aim of this study was to investigate the questions and needs of persons who sought help for their headache in an internet expert forum., Methods: Using a content analysis approach, we analysed all questions sent to an internet expert forum for migraine and headache ( www.lifeline.de )., Results: We analysed a total of 835 questions sent from April 2002 until April 2006. The majority of questions (85%) came from women. Most often the visitors asked questions about symptoms (32.2%, n=269), drugs or therapies (32.0%) and psychosocial problems (20%). Few visitors (45/835) complained about their doctors. Some of these were dissatisfied with their therapy and/or the effect and possible side effects of their prescribed drugs. In 19 questions we detected communication problems in former consultations with their doctors., Conclusion: Visitors of an expert forum for migraine and headache had questions about symptoms and their interpretation as well as drugs and therapies. Dissatisfaction with current treatment motivated only few patients to turn to the Internet. For most visitors the expert forum is obviously not an alternative but a supplement to professional care., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart, New York.)

Background: Technological progress, as well as increasing success, of reproductive medicine may lower the threshold for childless couples to initiate infertility therapy. However this development may aggravate unsolved problems (e. g. multiple births) and may not increase the pregnancy rate, due to the present unsatisfactory legal situation in Germany (e. g. ban on selective blastocyst culture)., Methods: Based on a systematic review of the literature, we studied actual problems of German reproductive medicine under three public health-related topics: (1) the decline in population in Germany, (2) criteria for success in reproductive medicine and (3) new treatment options in the light of legal and ethical aspects., Results: In Germany (and other industrial nations), reproductive medicine has emerged parallel to an ever-increasing rate of childlessness. Today, 2 % of all births result from treatments using the techniques of reproductive medicine. Nevertheless, the actual extent of involuntary childlessness is lower (below 8 %) than commonly suggested (between 10 and 15 %). Frequently, the success of treatment depends upon a series of treatment cycles and is, especially in Germany, accompanied by a high rate of multiple births (more than 30 %). Hence, a more adequate success rate may be the healthy, i. e., term, singleton baby. The use of selective blastocyst culture, currently not permitted in Germany, could further improve therapy or, at least, reduce patient stress and discomfort., Conclusion: Reproductive medicine, as seen from a public health perspective, needs to pursue patient-oriented requirements more in-depth. An open discussion of new technologies which could improve reproductive health but are at present not permitted, would be imperative.

Purpose: Since public acceptance of pharmacogenetic testing will largely influence their implementation in routine medical care, common implications of pharmacogenetic testing from patients', physicians' and scientists' perspective are reviewed., Methods: Broad literature review (MEDLINE; MeSH terms: Pharmacogenetics, Delivery of Health Care, Ethics, Attitude, Patient Acceptance of Health Care) of empirical and theoretical studies describing psychological, family-related, social, and ethical consequences of pharmacogenetic testing to describe relevant aspects for further empirical studies., Results: Apart from anticipated benefit, acceptance of pharmacogenetic testing might be influenced by the following: Expectation of negative psychosocial consequences, fear of discrimination or violation of privacy. Due to its great complexity, understanding of test results and explanation of their impact pose new challenges for physician-patient relations. Since most studies are conceptual, empirical studies exploring attitudes of patients/physicians and determining medical as well as economic value of pharmacogenetic testing are imperative.

Effective from spring 2004, new regulations for undergraduate medical education in Germany require a two-week practical training in general practice. Similar to other forms of medical education, this practical training should be regularly evaluated by students. With regard to special conditions of the training, we preferred a web based evaluation. Since adequate models were not available, we designed, implemented and tested an electronic way of evaluation. The following aspects turned out to be of special importance: teamwork, time, data protection and cost. Meanwhile, the evaluation is established and still accessible as demo-version for visitors of the home page. This electronic evaluation of medical training in general practice is highly appropriate for a timely evaluation allowing us to obtain a comparison between students' expectations and actual experience as well as a continuous supervision and to provide feedback to the participating practices. This is an important step for quality assurance of medical education in practices inside and outside the university.

A Proposal (not only) for General Practice/Family Medicine: Medical faculties and other institutions increase their pressure on scientific societies and colleges to present and set standards to evaluate publications from their discipline. After discussing the quality of different literature and publication indices the authors take a critical look at the impact factor which arouses much controversy among medical faculties. The evaluation standard presented for general practice comprises three categories of quality to which (A) Top Journals, (B) Standard Journals and (C) other Journals (but also books and book contributions) are allocated. Assessment criteria are mainly based on indexation (Index Medicus) and independent peer review. Within that system original papers are valued higher than reviews and editorials or comments. The impact factor is not considered to be helpful for judgement. The authors are convinced that any numerical point system would not be likely to lead to a reasonable assessment of an individual publication. Furthermore, there could be an increased risk that members of committees would prefer the point system for their judgement rather than to read papers in detail. The suggested standard could serve as an aid for referees from disciplines other than general practice. However, their expert decision regarding the quality of publications could not be replaced by even the most sophisticated valuation system.

The aim of the study was to assess whether or not management of infertility is within the domain of the general practitioner in his capacity as a family physician. All accredited family physicians in the wider area of Goettingen were invited to take part in our survey. A total of 57 doctors (84%) participated. In personal interviews the family physicians were encouraged to frankly discuss the following main topics: the frequency of infertility in their own practice as well as their care for and attitudes towards infertile patients. Many family physicians interviewed were reluctant to address involuntary childlessness and underestimated its frequency. According to their patients' needs and demands, however, family doctors--above all in rural practices--have been participating in the screening and counseling of, and providing emotional support for, involuntarily childless patients. A qualitative analysis of the interview data revealed that many family physicians regarded infertility as the patients' private matter and placed it within the domain of specialists. About one-third of the physicians expressed negative attitudes towards infertile patients. Moreover, assisted reproduction techniques were sometimes rejected as "unnatural" methods. If a family-oriented approach should be amplified in family practice by offering supportive counseling for infertile patients, continuing medical education will have to take these attitudes into account.