Search

Abstract Background The International Survey of People living with Chronic Conditions (OECD-PaRIS survey), aims to systematically gather patient-reported experiences (PREMs) and - outcomes (PROMs) and potential predictors for these outcomes for persons with chronic conditions as well as information from professionals about health care provided. In such patient surveys, the advantages of a multilevel (nested) approach in which patients are sampled ‘within providers’ need to be balanced against the potential for bias if patient populations from participating GPs significantly differ from those of non-participating GPs. The objective was to assess the effects of general practitioner (GP) non-participation on the representativeness of the Norwegian patient data of the International Survey of People living with Chronic Conditions (OECD-PaRIS survey). Methods To test all aspects of the first main PaRIS survey, it was preceded by a field trial which this paper reports on the Norwegian part of. For the Norwegian part of the field trial in 2022, we randomly sampled and surveyed 75 GPs and 125 patients 45 years and older for each GP, regardless of whether their GP were also participating in the study. GPs were sampled from a national register that included all GPs. The surveys were primarily digital, but we sent postal questionnaires to non-digital patients and non-responding digital patients. We compared GP and patient characteristics as well as patient-reported experiences and outcomes according to GP participation status in bivariate analysis, supplemented with multiple linear regressions with PREMs/PROMs as dependent variables and participation status as independent adjusting for significant patient factors. Results 17 of 75 sampled GPs participated (22.7%), of which 993 of 2,015 patients responded (49.3%). 3,347 of 7,080 patients of non-responding GPs answered (47.3%). Persons with chronic conditions from participating GPs reported significantly better patient-centred coordinated care (p = 0.017), overall experiences with the GP office the last 12 months (p = 0.004), mental well-being (p = 0.039) and mental health (p = 0.013) than patients from non-participating GPs. The raw differences between participating and non-participating GPs on patient-reported experiences and – outcomes varied from 1.5 to 2.9 points on a 0-100 scale, and from 2.2 to 3.0 after adjustment for case-mix. Conclusions The Norwegian field trial indicates that estimates based on participants in the PaRIS survey may modestly overestimate patient-reported experiences and -outcomes at the aggregated level and the need for more research within and across countries to identify and address this potential bias.

Background: GPs and patients are frequently asked to evaluate mental health care, but studies including evaluations from both groups are rare., Objective: To assess the association between GPs' and patients' assessment of mental health outpatient clinic in Norway and identify important health care predictors for patient and GP satisfaction with the clinics., Methods: Two cross-sectional national surveys were carried out: survey of GPs in 2006 and patients in 2007 evaluating outpatient clinics at 69 community mental health centres in Norway. A total of 2009 GPs and 9001 outpatients assessed the clinics by means of a postal questionnaire. Main outcome measures were correlations between GP and patient ratings of the outpatient clinics at the clinic level and health care predictors for patient satisfaction and GP satisfaction with the clinics., Results: Clinic scores for GPs' and patients' assessment of waiting time were moderate to highly correlated (0.65), while clinic scores for GP and patient satisfaction had a lower but significant positive association (0.37). Significant positive correlations between clinic scores for GP and patients ratings were found for 38 of the 48 associations tested. The most important predictors for patient satisfaction with the clinics were interaction with the clinician (beta: 0.23) and being met with politeness and respect at the clinic (beta: 0.19), while the most important predictors for GP satisfaction with the clinics were perceived competence (beta: 0.25), rejection of referrals (beta: -0.17) and waiting time for patients (beta: -0.16)., Conclusions: A consistent positive association between GP and patient ratings at the clinic level was identified. Mental health services aiming at improving GP and patient satisfaction should be sensitive to the fact that the two groups prioritize different health care factors.

The present study aims at identifying determinants of risk behaviour and accident involvement in traffic. The results are based on a self-completion questionnaire survey carried out among a representative sample of Norwegian drivers drawn from the driver's licence register. The data was collected in year 2000 and 2001 (n=2614). The questionnaire included measures of attitudes, risk behaviour and involvement in accidents and near accidents. The results showed that attitudes towards traffic safety issues influenced involvement in risk behaviour in traffic, especially attitudes towards rule violations and speeding. Risk behaviour had an effect on involvement in near accidents and accidents. Variations in attitudes and risk behaviour were related to age and gender.