Search

Huisartsen maken veel gebruik van ecg’s en interpreteren deze redelijk adequaat. Nieuwe ontwikkelingen op het gebied van kunstmatige intelligentie en m-health gaan snel, ook in de huisartsenpraktijk. Maar de waarde ervan is sterk afhankelijk van de context.

In 2019, the EJGP published 21 original articles, 3 systematic reviews and 4 background and opinion papers, including the first part of a Series on eHealth [1]. Authors came from the Netherlands, S...

The novel coronavirus epidemic is transforming the world\ud in which we live. This pandemic will bring sweeping changes everywhere, not least in the field of primary care medicine. Like one of our colleagues said: ‘after this crisis, perhaps even our calendar needs to be redefined. From now on, “BC” might stand for “Before Coronavirus”’. This quote puts into perspective just how significant the current times are for our profession. In this editorial, we will discuss challenges and tasks the COVID-19 crisis presents for family medicine.

The Editors of the European Journal of General Practice (EJGP) would like to express their gratitude to all reviewers who have advised us during the year 2017. To acknowledge their essential contri...

The incidence and prevalence of dyspnea increases with age. Frequently, for the general practitioner with his limited diagnostic facilities, it is impossible to separate dyspnea from cardiac causes and non-cardiac causes. Without cardiac imaging it is also impossible to separate systolic dysfunction from diastolic dysfunction. After a thorough physical examination, initial screening of systolic and diastolic heart failure can be done by measurement of plasma NT-pro BNP or plasma BNP. Additionally a Chest X-Ray or ECG can be performed. To improve diagnostic performance an open access echocardiographic service can be initiated. Recent studies showed, that open access echocardiography can easily detect systolic and diastolic dysfunction in the community and can separate cardiac from non-cardiac dyspnea.

Contains fulltext : 71514.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) OBJECTIVE: Assessment of patients' responsiveness to a decision support tool for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The booklet focuses on barriers at patient level. METHODS: Process evaluation of an intervention in primary care. Patients at high or potentially high-cardiovascular risk were asked by their GP to prepare themselves for a second consultation in order to participate in decisions on risk management. OUTCOMES: Patients' actually having read the booklet and returning for the second consultation; comprehension and perceived relevance of the information; perceived reassurance. RESULTS: 17 GPs, in the intervention arm of a cluster RCT, issued 276 decision support tools during the first consultation and were instructed to ask them to return for a second consultation to discuss their CVD risk. Patients had a mean age of 54 years, 47% were male and 19% actually had a high cardiovascular risk. Data on 239 patients, a mixture of returnees and non-returnees, showed that they all read the booklet; comprehension was fair to good; 85% perceived the information as relevant; 68% of the patients felt reassured by the information. Satisfaction with the first consultation was higher in the non-returnees. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular prevention spread over two consultations with use of a decision support tool for patients is not easily applicable for GPs. However, based on the findings of good patients' responsiveness, we recommend further development and implementation of decision support tools in primary care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Decision support for primary CV-prevention is welcomed by patients but needs further adjustment of both the GP and the organization of CV-prevention in primary care. Sharing information between professional and patient on a personal CV-risk management plan is difficult, more training is needed.

‘Inequity in publishing scientific papers’ was the topic of one of the five ‘grand sessions’ organized during the last Wonca Europe Conference held in Istanbul from 22–25 October 2015. In that sess...

The Editors of the European Journal of General Practice should like to express their gratitude to all reviewers who have advised us during the year 2016. To acknowledge their indispensable contribu...

At the October 2012 EGPRN conference in Antwerp on ‘Patient-centred Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care,’ Peter Groenewegen gave a keynote lecture in which he tried to answer two questi...

In its first issue of 2014, the European Journal of General Practice (EJGP) offers you a lot of food for thought. In the ‘EGPRN-EURIPA Abstracts’, the focus is on studies from rural family practice...

Contains fulltext : 59171.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) The application of cardiovascular guidelines and risk tables may be impeded by many barriers. In the present paper, we explored the role of patients in the feasibility of cardiovascular preventive care in general practice. Patient-related barriers were examined by means of a qualitative study. Fifteen GPs audio-taped one or two consultations on primary cardiovascular preventive care. The tapes were used to guide the subsequent semi-structured in-depth interviews with patients. Twenty-two patients were interviewed. Patients' understanding of prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) was often insufficient. The risk table and the multi-factorial approach were difficult to understand. Risk perception was often unrealistic and dichotomous, and mainly based on personal experiences. There was a demand for more information and cholesterol tests. At the patient level, many barriers impede effective prevention of cardiovascular diseases. In particular, the highly individualized high-risk approach needs to be explained to patients. Educational patient materials, intended to support both the GP and the patient, should take into account the ideas, fears and expectations of patients.

The Editors of the European Journal of General Practice would like to express their gratitude to all reviewers who have advised us during the year 2013. To acknowledge their indispensable contribut...

One of the aims of The European Journal of General Practice (EJGP) is to foster scientific research in general practice/family medicine (GP/FM) and primary health care (PHC) in Europe. In the last ...

The European Journal of General Practice is looking for an Associate Editor from a German speaking or Nordic country (Germany, Switzerland, Austria; Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland) to complete th...

Peer review is the critical element of each scientific journal. The Editors of The European Journal of General Practice would like to express their gratitude to all reviewers who have advised us on...

In this first issue of 2010, the European Journal of General Practice continues its series on the ‘Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Health Care in Europe’. Furthermo...

Peer review is the critical element of each scientific journal. The EJGP Editors want to express their gratitude to all reviewers who have advised us on publishing a paper in 2009. You have devoted...

One of the non-invasive techniques used in the diagnosis of patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease is the measurement of the Ankle-Arm Systolic Pressure Ratio ("AA-Ratio"). The magnitude of different sources of measurement variation, relevant to clinical practice as well as multi-observer studies, was estimated from a random effects analysis of variance model. Thirty-five GPs and 24 practice assistants performed 503 AA-Ratio measurements on nine patients over a period of nine weeks, using pocket Doppler devices. When the AA-Ratio is used for diagnostic purposes, a 95% prediction interval consisting of the measured value +/- 15-20% AA-Ratio has to be taken into account. Furthermore, when the AA-Ratio is used in the follow-up of a patient with vascular disease, the difference between two subsequent measurements has to be at least 15.6-19.0% AA-Ratio to have an 80% certainty that this difference is not due to (intra-observer) measurement error.