Search

Background: Cervical screening has transformed the diagnosis of cervical cancer. However, uptake within the national screening programme is not uniform across demographics. This raises the question of whether medical language, which conveys essential information but also shapes attitudes towards engaging with healthcare, is part of the problem. The term "smear test" has been used for generations and is embedded in colloquial and medical vocabulary. However, there is a danger that the phrase may conjure images of an unpleasant or even reckless ordeal, potentially contributing to unnecessary patient anxiety., Aim: To evaluate patient attitudes towards the terms "cervical smear" and "cervical brush"., Method: Female participants from a single GP surgery were randomly sampled. Data from questionnaires were then subjected to thematic analysis., Results: Half of patients interviewed did not feel either term would significantly influence cervical screening uptake. Equal numbers of patients expressed an overall preference for each of the two terms, and the remaining 28% expressed no preference. Qualitative data revealed some patients favoured the familiarity of the term "cervical smear", and others preferred the descriptive accuracy of "cervical brush"., Conclusion: It is imperative to consult target groups and use inclusive language that minimises stigmatising or negative connotations. Modifying language alone is unlikely to remedy the current access barriers in UK cervical screening. Instead, a multifaceted approach that also targets education and addresses systemic issues could offer a more sustainable strategy. Ultimately, prioritising a patient-centred approach could improve access to life-saving screening., (© British Journal of General Practice 2024.)

Background: GP confidence and competence in relation to gender diversity and the discussion of related matters remains relatively unknown. Despite increasing demand on primary care in dealing with matters of gender identity; contention and confusion are unfortunately widely reported amongst doctors., Aim: We sought to formally evaluate the level of GP training and gauge desire for further training in relation to the discussion of pronouns with patients., Method: We used a structured questionnaire that was sent out to GPs in Oxfordshire, facilitated by a mailing list used by the Primary Care Undergraduate Teaching Department at the University of Oxford. Additionally, we performed structured individual interviews with GPs in Oxford, who provided their contact details and expressed interest when completing the questionnaire., Results: Fourty-four GPs responded and completed the questionnaire, five of whom agreed to participate in a structured interview. Most GPs (61%) had not received any formal training. Despite this, 68% of GPs did not want more formal training in the field of gender incongruence and pronoun usage. Only one GP routinely asked patients their pronouns (2%)., Conclusion: Our findings highlight that a significant proportion of GPs have no formal training in relation to discussing pronouns and gender incongruence. We believe GPs should have the skills necessary to appreciate, understand and provide structured support to those with concerns in relation to their gender identity. With waiting times for gender clinics frequently exceeding 2 years, our findings emphasise the increasing importance of GP specific training in the field of gender identity., (© British Journal of General Practice 2024.)

Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cause significant morbidity and mortality worldwide, primarily through exacerbations. Exacerbations are often treated with antibiotics but their optimal course duration is uncertain. Reducing antibiotic duration may influence antimicrobial resistance but risks treatment failure. The objective of this article is to review published literature to investigate whether shorter antibiotic therapy duration affects clinical outcomes in the treatment of asthma and COPD exacerbations. We systematically searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, World Health Organisation International Clinical Trial Registry Platform, the Cochrane library, and ISRCTN) with no language, location, or time restrictions. We retrieved observational and controlled trials comparing different durations of the same oral antibiotic therapy in the treatment of acute exacerbations of asthma or COPD in adults. We found no applicable studies for asthma exacerbations. We included 10 randomized, placebo-controlled trials for COPD patients, all from high-income countries. The commonest studied antibiotic class was fluoroquinolones. Antibiotic courses shorter than 6 days were associated with significantly fewer overall adverse events (risk ratio (RR): 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-0.93, p = 0.001) when compared with those of 7 or more days. There was no statistically significant difference for clinical success or bacteriological eradication in sputum (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.88-1.13 and RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.79-1.44, respectively). Shorter durations of antibiotics for COPD exacerbations do not seem to confer a higher risk of treatment failure but are associated with fewer adverse events. This is in keeping with previous studies in community acquired pneumonia, but studies were heterogeneous and differed from usual clinical practice. Further observational and prospective work is needed to explore the significance of antibiotic duration in the treatment of asthma and COPD exacerbations.