Search

Background: Studies of Primary Health Care (PHC) reveal considerable practice variations in terms of the range of services provided. In Norway, general practitioners (GPs) are traditionally expected to perform IUD-insertions and several surgical procedures as a part of comprehensive PHC. We aimed to investigate variation in the provision of surgical procedures and IUD-insertions across GPs and over time and explore determinants of such variation., Methods: Retrospective registry study of Norwegian GPs. From a comprehensive database of GPs' reimbursement claims, we obtained procedure codes and GP characteristics such as age, gender, list size and municipality characteristics from 2006 through 2013. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to explore determinants of practice variation., Results: We extracted data from 4,828 GPs. In 2013, 91.0, 76.1 and 74.8% were reimbursed at least once for minor and major surgical procedures and IUD-insertion, respectively. Female GPs had lower odds for performing major surgical procedures (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32-0.45) and higher odds for performing IUD-insertions (OR 6.28, 95% CI 4.47-8.82) than male GPs. Older GPs and GPs with shorter patient lists were less likely to perform surgical procedures. GPs with longer patient lists had higher odds for performing IUD-insertions. The proportion of GPs performing surgical procedures increased over time, while the proportion decreased for IUD-insertions. The number of IUD-insertions in specialist care increased from 12,575 in 2011 to 15 216 (+21.0%) in 2014., Conclusion: We observed a large variation in the provision of surgical procedures and IUD-insertions amongst GPs in Norway. The GPs' age, gender, list size and size of municipality were associated with performing the procedures. Our findings suggest a shift of IUD-insertions from primary to specialist care.

Background: Guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease provide little guidance on how patients' preferences should be taken into account. We wanted to explore whether general practitioners (GPs) are sensitive to patient preferences regarding survival gains from statin therapy., Methods: In a cross sectional, online survey 3,270 Norwegian GPs were presented with a 55 year old patient with an unfavourable cardiovascular risk profile. He expressed preferences for statin therapy by indicating a minimum survival gain that would be considered a substantial benefit. This survival gain varied across six versions of the vignette: 8, 4 and 2 years, and 12, 6 and 3 months, respectively. Participants were randomly allocated to one version only. We asked whether the GPs would recommend the patient to take a statin. Subsequently we asked the GPs to estimate the average survival gain of life long simvastatin therapy for patients with a similar risk profile., Results: We received 1,296 responses (40 %). Across levels of survival gains (8 years to 3 months) the proportion of GPs recommending statin therapy did not vary significantly (OR per level 1.07, 95 % CI 0.99 to 1.16). The GP's own estimate of survival gain was a statistically significant predictor of recommending therapy (OR per year adjusted for the GPs' age, sex, speciality attainment and number of patients listed 3.07, CI 2.55 to 3.69)., Conclusion: GPs were insensitive to patient preferences regarding survival gain when recommending statin therapy. The GPs' recommendations were strongly associated with their own estimates of survival gain.

Background: Health reforms in many countries affect the scope and nature of primary care. General Practitioners (GPs) are expected to spend more time developing public health, preventive health care, coordination of care and teamwork. We aimed to explore which professional activities GPs consider to be meaningful and how they would like to prioritise tasks., Methods: In a cross sectional online survey 3,270 GPs were invited to consider twenty different activities in general practice. They were asked to rate each of them on a Likert scale anchored from 1 (not meaningful) to 5 (very meaningful). They then selected three activities from the item list on which they would like to spend more time and three activities on which they would like to spend less time. We used multinomial logistic regression to explore associations between the GPs' preferences for time spent on preventive health care activities and age, gender and practice characteristics., Results: Approximately 40% (n=1,308) responded. The most meaningful activities were handling common symptoms and complaints (94% scored 4 or 5), chronic somatic diseases (93%), terminal care (80%), chronic psychiatric diseases (77%), risk conditions (76%) and on call emergency services (70%). In terms of priority the same items prevailed except that GPs would like to spend less time on emergency services. Items with low priority were health certificates, practice administration, meetings with local health authorities, medically unexplained symptoms, addiction medicine, follow up of people certified unfit for work, psychosocial problems, preventive health clinics for children and school health services. In multivariate regression models physician and practice characteristics explained no more than 10% of the variability in the GPs' preferences for time spent on preventive health care services., Conclusions: The GPs found diagnosis and treatment of diseases most meaningful. Their priorities were partly at odds with those of the health authorities and policy makers.

OBJECTIVES. Increasing drug expenditures call for better understanding of the reasons behind individual general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing decisions. The aim was to analyse associations between GPs' clinical interests and their preference for new drugs. DESIGN. Historical cohort study using population-based prescription data and data collected by postal questionnaire. SETTING AND SUBJECTS. A total of 68 single-handed GPs in the County of Funen, Denmark. Main outcome measures. GPs' preferences for two new (2004) drug groups (selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors and angiotensin-II antagonists) were analysed. The preference was defined as the percentage of patients receiving a new drug among first-time users of either the new drug or an older alternative. The GPs' preference proportion was modelled using linear regression analysis. Data from a questionnaire on GPs' interest in corresponding clinical areas (musculoskeletal diseases and hypertension, respectively), continuing medical education (CME) activities, and previous employment were the independent variables. RESULTS. The adjusted mean difference in preference for new drugs between GPs with high and low interest in each of the two clinical areas was 0.4% (95% CI -2.0% to 2.8%), and -2.2% (-15.0% to 10.7%), respectively. Only current CME activities in the area of hypertension were significantly associated with GPs' preference for new drugs (adjusted mean difference 17.9% (95% CI 5.8% to 30.0%). CONCLUSION. No clear association between GPs' self-rated clinical interest and their prescribing of new drugs was found.

Background: It is important that patients are well-informed about risks and benefits of therapies to help them decide whether to accept medical therapy. Different numerical formats can be used in risk communication but It remains unclear how the different formats affect decisions made by real-life patients.Aim: To compare the impact of using Prolongation Of Life (POL) and Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) information formats to express effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy on patients' redemptions of statin prescriptions, and on patients' confidence in their decision and satisfaction with the risk communication.Design and Setting: Cluster-randomised clinical trial in general practices. Thirty-four Danish GPs from 23 practices participated in a primary care-based clinical trial concerning use of quantitative effectiveness formats for risk communication in health prevention consultations.Method: GPs were cluster-randomised (treating practices as clusters) to inform patients about cardiovascular mortality risk and the effectiveness of statin treatment using either POL or ARR formats. Patients' redemptions of statin prescriptions were obtained from a regional prescription database. The COMRADE questionnaire was used to measure patients' confidence in their decision and satisfaction with the risk communication.Results: Of the 240 patients included for analyses, 112 were allocated to POL information and 128 to ARR. Patients redeeming a statin prescription totalled six (5.4%) when informed using POL, and 32 (25.0%) when using ARR. The level of confidence in decision and satisfaction with risk communication did not differ between the risk formats.Conclusion: Patients redeemed statin prescriptions less often when their GP communicated treatment effectiveness using POL compared with ARR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing use of the risk concept in healthcare has caused concern among medical doctors, especially general practitioners (GPs). Critics have claimed that risk identification and intervention create unfounded anxiety, that the concept of risk is not useful at the individual patient level, that patients' risk concept is different from an epidemiological one, that resources are better spent elsewhere, or that commercial interests take advantage of risk information to promote sales. In this paper the authors discuss the concept of risk and address the critique. There is evidence that commercial interests promote risk interventions, that patients may misunderstand risk information, and that risk information can cause unnecessary anxiety. The authors have found no empirical data on the amount of time primary healthcare providers spend on risk interventions, and have not identified any valid arguments that risk information is not useful for the individual patient. Decision-making under uncertainty is a core element of medical practice, and GPs need to be suitably trained to inform patients such that they make good decisions when they are faced with uncertainty. The concept of risk is therefore useful for GPs, and in fact a key issue. It is concluded that risk critique should be based on sound theory and empirical data. Critics may do well in making clear distinctions between facts and value judgements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective - The objective of the study was to gain better insight into how general practitioners (GPs) perceive risk reduction and the way this perception may be influenced by healthcare environment. Design - Questionnaires with clinical episodes were sent to Danish and Polish GPs, who were randomised into four groups, each receiving the same case story with differently phrased information about risk reduction achieved through medical treatment. The GPs were asked whether they would recommend medical treatment, knowing the case story and expected risk reduction. Subjects - Danish and Polish GPs. Results - A greater proportion of Polish GPs than Danish GPs would definitely or probably recommend treatment (93% versus 72%; p < 0.001). Both groups of doctors were more inclined to recommend treatment when the achievable benefits were presented in terms of relative risk reduction rather than absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat. Conclusion - Neither information on number needed to treat nor relative risk reduction alone provides doctors with all the information they need to recommend treatment or prevention to their patients. The present study showed that the professional handling of risk information is affected by differences produced by healthcare cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]