Search

PURPOSE Electronic application (app)-based treatment is promising for common diseases with good conservative management options, such as urinary incontinence (UI) in women, but its effectiveness compared with usual care is unclear. This study set out to determine if app-based treatment for women with stress, urgency, or mixed UI was noninferior to usual care in the primary care setting. METHODS The URinControl trial is a pragmatic, noninferiority randomized controlled trial in Dutch primary care including adult women with 2 episodes of UI per week. From July 2015 to July 2018, we screened 350 women for eligibility. A stand-alone app-based treatment with pelvic floor muscle and bladder training (URinControl) was compared with usual care according to the Dutch general practitioner guideline for UI treatment. Outcomes measured were change in symptom severity score from baseline to 4 months (primary outcome), impact on disease-specific quality of life, patient-perceived improvement, and number of UI episodes. Noninferiority ( RESULTS A total of 262 eligible women were randomized equally; 195 of them had follow-up through 4 months. The change in symptom severity with app-based treatment (-2.16 points; 95% CI, -2.67 to -1.65) was noninferior to that with usual care (-2.56 points; 95% CI, -3.28 to -1.84), with a mean difference of 0.058 points (95% CI, -0.776 to 0.891) between groups. Neither treatment was superior to the other, and both groups showed improvements in outcome measures after treatment. CONCLUSIONS App-based treatment for women with UI was at least as effective as usual care in the primary care setting. As such, app-based treatments, with their potential advantages of privacy, accessibility, and lower cost, may provide women with a good alternative to consultation. Key words: app; eHealth; medical informatics; self-management; urinary incontinence; general practice; primary care; women's health; non-inferiority; pragmatic; practice-based research, INTRODUCTION Conservative treatment for female urinary incontinence (UI) can be time-consuming, and adherence varies, which limit its effectiveness. (1) Electronic application (app)-based treatment that delivers advice, training, and motivation for [...]

Background: Genital and anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) frequently present together in sexually transmitted infection (STI) clinics. Aim: To investigate the prevalence of co-occurrent genital and anorectal chlamydia infection, and to study whether sexual behaviour is associated with anorectal infection. Design & setting: A cross-sectional study in general practices in the north of the Netherlands. Method: Women attending general practice with an indication for genital chlamydia testing were included and asked to complete a structured questionnaire on sexual behaviour. Anorectal infection prevalence was compared according to testing indications: standard versus experimental (based on questionnaire answers). Variables associated with anorectal chlamydia were analysed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: Data could be analysed for 497 of 515 women included. Overall, 17.8% (n = 87/490) were positive for CT; of these, 72.4% (n = 63/87) had co-occurrent genital and anorectal infection, 13.8% (n = 12/87) had genital infection only, and 12.6% (n = 11/87) had anorectal infection only. Rectal infection was missed in 69.3% of cases using the standard indication alone, while adding the sexual history still missed 20.0%. Age was the only variable significantly associated with anorectal infection. Conclusion: The prevalence of anorectal disease is high among women who visit their GP with an indication for genital CT testing. Many anorectal infections are missed despite taking comprehensive sexual histories, meaning that standard treatment of genital infection with azithromycin may result in rectal persistence. Performing anorectal testing in all women with an indication for genital CT testing is, therefore, recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Health care expenditures for children with functional constipation (FC) are high, while conservative management is successful in only 50% of the children. The aim is to evaluate whether adding physiotherapy to conventional treatment (CT) is a cost-effective strategy in the management of children with FC aged 4-18 years in primary care.Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 8-month follow-up. Costs were assessed from a societal perspective, effectiveness included both the primary outcome (treatment success defined as the absence of FC and no laxative use) and the secondary outcome (absence of FC irrespective of laxative use). Uncertainty was assessed by bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were displayed.Results: One hundred and thirty-four children were randomized. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one additional successfully treated child in the physiotherapy group compared with the CT group was €24,060 (95% confidence interval [CI] €-16,275 to €31,390) and for the secondary outcome €1,221 (95% CI €-12,905 to €10,956). Subgroup analyses showed that for children with chronic laxative use the ICER was €2,134 (95% CI -24,975 to 17,192) and €571 (95% CI 11 to 3,566), respectively. At a value of €1,000, the CEAC showed a probability of 0.53 of cost-effectiveness for the primary outcome, and 0.90 for the secondary outcome.Conclusions: Physiotherapy added to CT as first-line treatment for all children with FC is not cost-effective compared with CT alone. Future studies should consider the cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy added to CT in children with chronic laxative use.Trial Registration: The RCT is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR4797), on the 8th of September 2014. The first child was enrolled on the 2nd of December 2014. https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/4654. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Urinary incontinence negatively influences the lives of 25-50% of elderly women, mostly due to feelings of shame and being limited in activities and social interactions. This study explores whether differences exist between types of urinary incontinence (stress, urgency or mixed) and severity of the symptoms, with regard to their effects on generic and condition-specific quality of life. Methods This is a cross-sectional study among participants of a randomized controlled trial in primary care. A total of 225 women (aged ≥ 55 years) completed a questionnaire (on physical/emotional impact and limitations) and were interviewed for demographic characteristics and co-morbidity. Least squares regression analyses were conducted to estimate differences between types and severity of urinary incontinence with regard to their effect on quality of life. Results Most patients reported mixed urinary incontinence (50.7%) and a moderate severity of symptoms (48.9%). Stress urinary incontinence had a lower impact on the emotional domain of condition-specific quality of life compared with mixed urinary incontinence (r = −7.81). There were no significant associations between the types of urinary incontinence and generic quality of life. Severe symptoms affected both the generic (r = −0.10) and condition-specific (r = 17.17) quality of life. Conclusions The effects on condition-specific quality of life domains differ slightly between the types of incontinence. The level of severity affects both generic and condition-specific quality of life, indicating that it is not the type but rather the severity of urinary incontinence that is the main predictor of decreased quality of life.

Abstract Background Patients suffering from psychotic disorders have an increased risk of comorbid somatic diseases such as cardiovascular disorders and diabetes mellitus. Doctor-related factors, such as unfamiliarity with these patients, as well as patient-related factors, such as cognitive disturbance and negative symptoms, contribute to suboptimal health care for these patients. General practitioners (GPs) could play a key role in diagnosing and treating this somatic comorbidity as in the Netherlands, almost all residents are registered at a general practice. This study aims to find out whether there are any differences between the levels of health care provided by GPs to patients with psychotic disorders, compared to other types of patients. Methods A cohort of patients with an ICPC code of psychosis and two matched control groups, one consisting of patients with other mental problems and the other one of patients without any mental problems, were followed over a period of 5 years. Results Patients with psychotic disorders (N = 734) contacted the GP practice more often than patients in the control groups. These patients, both adults (p = 0.051) and the elderly (p < 0.005), received more home visits from their GPs. In the adult group (16 to 65 years old inclusive), the number of consultations was significantly higher among both psychosis patients and the group of patients with other mental problems (p < 0.0005). The number of telephone consultations was significantly higher in both age categories, adult group (p < 0.0005), and > 65 years old (p = 0.007). With regard to chronic illnesses, elderly psychosis patients had fewer contacts related to cardiovascular diseases or chronic lung diseases. Conclusion Patients with psychotic disorders contact the GP practice more frequently than other types of patients. Adult psychosis patients with diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases or chronic lung diseases receive the same amount of health care for these diseases as other primary care patients. The finding that older patients with psychotic disorders are diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases and obstructive lung diseases less frequently than other types of elderly patients requires further study.

Abstract Background Patients with severe mental illness (SMI) experience distress and disabilities in several aspects of life, and they have a higher risk of somatic co-morbidity. Both patients and their family members need the support of an easily accessible primary care system. The willingness of general practitioners and the impeding factors for them to participate in providing care for patients with severe mental illness in the acute and the chronic or residual phase were explored. Methods A questionnaire survey of a sample of Dutch general practitioners spread over the Netherlands was carried out. This comprised 20 questions on the GP's 'Opinion and Task Perspective', 19 questions on 'Treatment and Experiences', and 27 questions on 'Characteristics of the General Practitioner and the Practice Organisation'. Results 186 general practitioners distributed over urban areas (49%), urbanised rural areas (38%) and rural areas (15%) of the Netherlands participated. The findings were as follows: GPs currently considered themselves as the first contact in the acute psychotic phase. In the chronic or residual phase GPs saw their core task as to diagnose and treat somatic co-morbidity. A majority would be willing to monitor the general health of these patients as well. It appeared that GP trainers and GPs with a smaller practice setting made follow-up appointments and were willing to monitor the self-care of patients with SMI more often than GPs with larger practices. GPs also saw their role as giving support and information to the patient's family. However, they felt a need for recognition of their competencies when working with mental health care specialists. Conclusion GPs were willing to participate in providing care for patients with SMI. They considered themselves responsible for psychotic emergency cases, for monitoring physical health in the chronic phase, and for supporting the relatives of psychotic patients.

Abstract Background Lipid-lowering medication remains underused, even in high-risk populations. The objective of this study was to determine factors underlying general practitioners' decisions not to prescribe such drugs to patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews using real cases was conducted to explore reasons for not prescribing lipid-lowering medication after a guideline was distributed that recommended the use of statins in most patients with type 2 diabetes. Seven interviews were conducted with general practitioners (GPs) in The Netherlands, and analysed using an analytic inductive approach. Results Reasons for not-prescribing could be divided into patient and physician-attributed factors. According to the GPs, some patients do not follow-up on agreed medication and others object to taking lipid-lowering medication, partly for legitimate reasons such as expected or perceived side effects. Furthermore, the GPs themselves perceived reservations for prescribing lipid-lowering medication in patients with short life expectancy, expected compliance problems or near goal lipid levels. GPs sometimes postponed the start of treatment because of other priorities. Finally, barriers were seen in the GPs' practice organisation, and at the primary-secondary care interface. Conclusion Some of the barriers mentioned by GPs seem to be valid reasons, showing that guideline non-adherence can be quite rational. On the other hand, treatment quality could improve by addressing issues, such as lack of knowledge or motivation of both the patient and the GP. More structured management in general practice may also lead to better treatment.

Abstract Background Coordination between care providers of different disciplines is essential to improve the quality of care, in particular for patients with chronic diseases. The way in which general practitioners (GP's) and medical specialists interact has important implications for any healthcare system in which the GP plays the role of gatekeeper to specialist care. Patient experiences and preferences have proven to be increasingly important in discussing healthcare policy. The Dutch government initiated the development of a special website with information for patients on performance indicators of hospitals as well as information on illness or treatment. In the present study we focus on the transition of care at the primary – secondary interface with reference to the impact of patients' ability to make choices about their secondary care providers. The purpose of this study is to (a) explore experiences and preferences of patients regarding the transition between primary and secondary care, (b) study informational resources on illness/treatment desired by patients and (c) determine how information supplied could make it easier for the patient to choose between different options for care (hospital or specialist). Methods We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured focus group interviews among 71 patients referred for various indications in the north and west of The Netherlands. Results Patients find it important that they do not have to wait, that they are taken seriously, and receive adequate and individually relevant information. A lack of continuity from secondary to primary care was experienced. The patient's desire for free choice of type of care did not arise in any of the focus groups. Conclusion Hospital discharge information needs to be improved. The interval between discharge from specialist care and the report of the specialist to the GP might be a suitable performance indicator in healthcare. Patients want to receive information, tailored to their own situation. The need for information, however, is quite variable. Patients do not feel strongly about self-chosen healthcare, contrary to what administrators presently believe.

Abstract Background The continuity of care is one of the cornerstones of general practice. General practitioners find personal relationships with their patients important as they enable them to provide a higher quality of care. A long-lasting relationship with patients is assumed to be a prior condition for attaining this high quality. We studied the differences in use of care between recently enlisted patients and those patients who have been enlisted for a longer period. Methods 104 general practices in the Netherlands participated the study. We performed a retrospective cohort study in which patients who have been enlisted for less than 1 year (n = 10,102) were matched for age, sex and health insurance with patients who have been enlisted for longer in the same general practice. The two cohorts were compared with regard to the number of contacts with the general practice, diagnoses, rate of prescribing, and the referral rate in a year. These variables were chosen as indicators of differences in the use of care. Results In the year following their enlistment, a higher percentage of recently enlisted patients had at least one contact with the practice, received a prescription or was referred. They also had a higher probability of receiving a prescription for an antibiotic. Furthermore, they had a higher mean number of contacts and referrals, but not a higher mean number of prescriptions. Conclusion Recently enlisted patients used more health care resources in the first year after their enlistment compared to patients enlisted longer. This could not be explained by differences in health.

Background: Patient recruitment to clinical research is often challenging and, when inadequate, can result in delayed or underpowered studies. Recruitment problems were experienced during a study of women with heavy menstrual bleeding in general practice (the MIRA trial). Although efforts were made to reduce the burden of the study for those participating, patient recruitment was still an issue. Aim: To identify the barriers and facilitators associated with patient recruitment to clinical trials, as experienced by GPs. Design & setting: A qualitative study was performed in Dutch general practice, using semi- structured interviews. Method: GPs participating in the MIRA trial were selected by purposive sampling and interviewed until saturation was reached. Three independent researchers performed data coding and thematic analysis. Consensus on the identified themes was reached by discussion among the researchers. Results: Sixteen GPs were interviewed. The following factors were noted to influence recruitment: the incidence of the disease under study; awareness of the study; attitude towards scientific research; perceived burden for the patient; usual care by the GP; time investment; characteristics of the GP and their practice; and patient experience of research participation. Conclusion: The identified barriers and facilitators associated with patient recruitment highlight the areas in which future studies can be improved. Indeed, benefits could be gained by simply ensuring that study procedures are clear, by requiring limited (time) investment from the GP, and by investing in personal communication and reminders to keep the GP motivated and interested. Placing greater importance on scientific research during the GP training programme could also serve as a means to motivate future GPs to integrate scientific research in their clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]