Reasons for late presentation to HIV care in Switzerland.

INTRODUCTION: Late presentation to HIV care leads to increased morbidity and mortality. We explored risk factors and reasons for late HIV testing and presentation to care in the nationally representative Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS). METHODS: Adult patients enrolled in the SHCS between July 2009 and June 2012 were included. An initial CD4 count <350 cells/µl or an AIDS-defining illness defined late presentation. Demographic and behavioural characteristics of late presenters (LPs) were compared with those of non-late presenters (NLPs). Information on self-reported, individual barriers to HIV testing and care were obtained during face-to-face interviews. RESULTS: Of 1366 patients included, 680 (49.8%) were LPs. Seventy-two percent of eligible patients took part in the survey. LPs were more likely to be female (p<0.001) or from sub-Saharan Africa (p<0.001) and less likely to be highly educated (p=0.002) or men who have sex with men (p<0.001). LPs were more likely to have their first HIV test following a doctor's suggestion (p=0.01), and NLPs in the context of a regular check-up (p=0.02) or after a specific risk situation (p<0.001). The main reasons for late HIV testing were "did not feel at risk" (72%), "did not feel ill" (65%) and "did not know the symptoms of HIV" (51%). Seventy-one percent of the participants were symptomatic during the year preceding HIV diagnosis and the majority consulted a physician for these symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In Switzerland, late presentation to care is driven by late HIV testing due to low risk perception and lack of awareness about HIV. Tailored HIV testing strategies and enhanced provider-initiated testing are urgently needed.

Patterns of care in recurrent glioblastoma in Switzerland: a multicentre national approach based on diagnostic nodes.

Despite moderate improvements in outcome of glioblastoma after first-line treatment with chemoradiation recent clinical trials failed to improve the prognosis of recurrent glioblastoma. In the absence of a standard of care we aimed to investigate institutional treatment strategies to identify similarities and differences in the pattern of care for recurrent glioblastoma. We investigated re-treatment criteria and therapeutic pathways for recurrent glioblastoma of eight neuro-oncology centres in Switzerland having an established multidisciplinary tumour-board conference. Decision algorithms, differences and consensus were analysed using the objective consensus methodology. A total of 16 different treatment recommendations were identified based on combinations of eight different decision criteria. The set of criteria implemented as well as the set of treatments offered was different in each centre. For specific situations, up to 6 different treatment recommendations were provided by the eight centres. The only wide-range consensus identified was to offer best supportive care to unfit patients. A majority recommendation was identified for non-operable large early recurrence with unmethylated MGMT promoter status in the fit patients: here bevacizumab was offered. In fit patients with late recurrent non-operable MGMT promoter methylated glioblastoma temozolomide was recommended by most. No other majority recommendations were present. In the absence of strong evidence we identified few consensus recommendations in the treatment of recurrent glioblastoma. This contrasts the limited availability of single drugs and treatment modalities. Clinical situations of greatest heterogeneity may be suitable to be addressed in clinical trials and second opinion referrals are likely to yield diverging recommendations.

Sickness certification in primary care: a survey on views and practices among Swiss physicians.

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: Studies from several countries (Scandinavia, United Kingdom) report that general practitioners (GPs) experience problems in sickness certification. Our study explored views of Swiss GPs towards sickness certification, their practice and experience, professional skills and problematic interactions with patients. METHODS: We conducted an online survey among GPs throughout Switzerland, exploring behaviour of physicians, patients and employers with regard to sickness certification; GPs' views about sickness certification; required competences for certifying sickness absence, and approaches to advance their competence. We piloted the questionnaire and disseminated it through the networks of the five Swiss academic institutes for primary care. RESULTS: We received 507 valid responses (response rate 50%). Only 43/507 GPs experienced sickness certification as problematic per se, yet 155/507 experienced problems in sickness certification at least once a week. The 507 GPs identified estimating a long-term prognosis about work capacity (64%), handling conflicts with patients (54%), and determining the reduction of work capacity (42%) as problematic. Over 75% would welcome special training opportunities, e.g., on sickness certifications during residency (93%), in insurance medicine (81%), and conflict management (80%). CONCLUSION: Sickness certification as such does not present a major problem to Swiss GPs, which contrasts with the experience in Scandinavian countries and in the UK. Swiss GPs did identify specific tasks of sickness certification as problematic. Training opportunities on sick-leave certification and insurance medicine in general were welcomed.