Interpretation of primary care physicians' attitude regarding rotavirus immunisation using diffusion of innovation theories.

To evaluate primary care physicians' attitude towards implementation of rotavirus (RV) immunisation into the Swiss immunisation schedule, an eight-question internet-based questionnaire was sent to the 3799 subscribers of InfoVac, a nationwide web-based expert network on immunisation issues, which reaches >95% of paediatricians and smaller proportions of other primary care physicians. Five demographic variables were also inquired. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses for the main outcome "acceptance of routine RV immunisation" and other variables were performed. Diffusion of innovation theory was used for data assessment. Nine-hundred seventy-seven questionnaires were returned (26%). Fifty percent of participants were paediatricians. Routine RV immunisation was supported by 146 participants (15%; so called early adopters), dismissed by 620 (64%), leaving 211 (21%) undecided. However, when asked whether they would recommend RV vaccination to parents if it were officially recommended by the federal authorities and reimbursed, 467 (48.5%; so called early majority) agreed to recommend RV immunisation. Multivariate analysis revealed that physicians who would immunise their own child (OR: 5.1; 95% CI: 4.1-6.3), hospital-based physicians (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1-2.3) and physicians from the French (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.2-2.3) and Italian speaking areas of Switzerland (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.1-5.8) were more likely to support RV immunisation. Diffusion of innovation theory predicts a >80% implementation if approximately 50% of a given population support an innovation. Introduction of RV immunisation in Switzerland is likely to be successful, if (i) the federal authorities issue an official recommendation and (ii) costs are covered by basic health care insurance.

Counselling overweight and obese patients in primary care: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians are well positioned to provide counselling for overweight and obese patients, but no prospective study has assessed the effectiveness of this counselling in primary care. We aimed to evaluate weight reduction counselling by primary care physicians, and its relationship with weight change and patients' behaviour to control weight. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. METHODS: We enrolled 523 consecutive overweight and obese patients from two Swiss academic primary care clinics. Physicians and patients were blinded to the study aims. We assessed the use of 10 predefined counselling strategies for weight reduction, and weight change and behaviour to control weight after 1 year. RESULTS: Sixty-five per cent of patients received some form of weight reduction counselling whereas 35% received no counselling. A total of 407 patients completed the 1-year follow-up. Those who received counselling lost on average (SD) 1.0 (5.0) kg after 1 year, whereas those who were not advised gained 0.3 (5.0) kg (P = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, each additional counselling strategy was associated with a mean weight loss of 0.2 kg (95% confidence interval 0.03-0.4, P = 0.02). Patients counselled by their physician had more favourable behaviour to control weight than those not counselled, such as setting a target weight (56 versus 36%) or visiting a dietician (23 versus 10%, both P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Weight reduction counselling by primary care physicians is associated with a modest weight loss and favourable behaviour to control weight. However, many obese and overweight patients receive no advice on weight loss during primary care visits.

Validation of a clinical prediction score for ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients with chest pain.

Background: A patient's chest pain raises concern for the possibility of coronary heart disease (CHD). An easy to use clinical prediction rule has been derived from the TOPIC study in Lausanne. Our objective is to validate this clinical score for ruling out CHD in primary care patients with chest pain. Methods: This secondary analysis used data collected from a oneyear follow-up cohort study attending 76 GPs in Germany. Patients attending their GP with chest pain were questioned on their age, gender, duration of chest pain (1-60 min), sternal pain location, pain increases with exertion, absence of tenderness point at palpation, cardiovascular risks factors, and personal history of cardiovascular disease. Area under the curve (ROC), sensitivity and specificity of the Lausanne CHD score were calculated for patients with full data. Results: 1190 patients were included. Full data was available for 509 patients (42.8%). Missing data was not related to having CHD (p = 0.397) or having a cardiovascular risk factor (p = 0.275). 76 (14.9%) were diagnosed with a CHD. Prevalence of CHD were respectively of 68/344 (19.8%), 2/62 (3.2%), 6/103 (5.8%) in the high, intermediate and low risk category. ROC was of 72.9 (CI95% 66.8; 78.9). Ruling out patients with low risk has a sensitivity of 92.1% (CI95% 83.0; 96.7) and a specificity of 22.4% (CI95% 18.6%; 26.7%). Conclusion: The Lausanne CHD score shows reasonably good sensitivity and can be used to rule out coronary events in patients with chest pain. Patients at risk of CHD for other rarer reasons should nevertheless also be investigated.

Ruling out coronary artery disease in primary care: development and validation of a simple prediction rule.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain can be caused by various conditions, with life-threatening cardiac disease being of greatest concern. Prediction scores to rule out coronary artery disease have been developed for use in emergency settings. We developed and validated a simple prediction rule for use in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional diagnostic study in 74 primary care practices in Germany. Primary care physicians recruited all consecutive patients who presented with chest pain (n = 1249) and recorded symptoms and findings for each patient (derivation cohort). An independent expert panel reviewed follow-up data obtained at six weeks and six months on symptoms, investigations, hospital admissions and medications to determine the presence or absence of coronary artery disease. Adjusted odds ratios of relevant variables were used to develop a prediction rule. We calculated measures of diagnostic accuracy for different cut-off values for the prediction scores using data derived from another prospective primary care study (validation cohort). RESULTS: The prediction rule contained five determinants (age/sex, known vascular disease, patient assumes pain is of cardiac origin, pain is worse during exercise, and pain is not reproducible by palpation), with the score ranging from 0 to 5 points. The area under the curve (receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-0.91) for the derivation cohort and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.93) for the validation cohort. The best overall discrimination was with a cut-off value of 3 (positive result 3-5 points; negative result <or= 2 points), which had a sensitivity of 87.1% (95% CI 79.9%-94.2%) and a specificity of 80.8% (77.6%-83.9%). INTERPRETATION: The prediction rule for coronary artery disease in primary care proved to be robust in the validation cohort. It can help to rule out coronary artery disease in patients presenting with chest pain in primary care.

Patient, primary care physician and specialist expectations of primary care physician involvement in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, many health authorities recommend that primary care physicians (PCP) stay involved throughout their patients' cancer journey to increase continuity of care. Few studies have focused on patient and physician expectations regarding PCP involvement in cancer care. OBJECTIVE: To compare lung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP involvement in coordination of care, emotional support, information transmission and symptom relief at the different phases of cancer. DESIGN: Canadian survey of lung cancer patients, PCPs and cancer specialists PARTICIPANTS: A total of 395 patients completed questionnaires on their expectations regarding their PCP participation in several aspects of care, at different phases of their cancer. Also, 45 specialists and 232 community-based PCP involved in these patients' care responded to a mail survey on the same aspects of cancer care. RESULTS: Most specialists did not expect participation of the PCP in coordination of care in the diagnosis and treatment phases (65% and 78% respectively), in contrast with patients (83% and 85%) and PCPs (80% and 59%) (p < 0.0001). At these same phases, the best agreement among the 3 groups was around PCP role in emotional support: 84% and more of all groups had this expectation. PCP participation in symptom relief was another shared expectation, but more unanimously at the treatment phase (p = 0.85). In the advanced phase, most specialists expect a major role of PCP in all aspects of care (from 81% to 97%). Patients and PCP agree with them mainly for emotional support and information transmission. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer patient, PCP and specialist expectations regarding PCP role differ with the phase of cancer and the specific aspect of cancer care. There is a need to reach a better agreement among them and to better define PCP role, in order to achieve more collaborative and integrated cancer care.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a European primary-care physician training in smoking cessation counseling.

BACKGROUND: Physician training in smoking cessation counseling has been shown to be effective as a means to increase quit success. We assessed the cost-effectiveness ratio of a smoking cessation counseling training programme. Its effectiveness was previously demonstrated in a cluster randomized, control trial performed in two Swiss university outpatients clinics, in which residents were randomized to receive training in smoking interventions or a control educational intervention. DESIGN AND METHODS: We used a Markov simulation model for effectiveness analysis. This model incorporates the intervention efficacy, the natural quit rate, and the lifetime probability of relapse after 1-year abstinence. We used previously published results in addition to hospital service and outpatient clinic cost data. The time horizon was 1 year, and we opted for a third-party payer perspective. RESULTS: The incremental cost of the intervention amounted to US$2.58 per consultation by a smoker, translating into a cost per life-year saved of US$25.4 for men and 35.2 for women. One-way sensitivity analyses yielded a range of US$4.0-107.1 in men and US$9.7-148.6 in women. Variations in the quit rate of the control intervention, the length of training effectiveness, and the discount rate yielded moderately large effects on the outcome. Variations in the natural cessation rate, the lifetime probability of relapse, the cost of physician training, the counseling time, the cost per hour of physician time, and the cost of the booklets had little effect on the cost-effectiveness ratio. CONCLUSIONS: Training residents in smoking cessation counseling is a very cost-effective intervention and may be more efficient than currently accepted tobacco control interventions.

Impact of electronic monitoring of drug adherence on blood pressure control in primary care: a cluster 12-month randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Poor long-term adherence is an important cause of uncontrolled hypertension. We examined whether monitoring drug adherence with an electronic system improves long-term blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive patients followed by general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled study was conducted over one year in community pharmacists/GPs' networks randomly assigned either to usual care (UC) where drugs were dispensed as usual, or to intervention (INT) group where drug adherence could be monitored with an electronic system (Medication Event Monitoring System). No therapy change was allowed during the first 2 months in both groups. Thereafter, GPs could modify therapy and use electronic monitors freely in the INT group. The primary outcome was a target office BP<140/90 mmHg. RESULTS: Sixty-eight treated uncontrolled hypertensive patients (UC: 34; INT: 34) were enrolled. Over the 12-month period, the likelihood of reaching the target BP was higher in the INT group compared to the UC group (p<0.05). At 4 months, 38% in the INT group reached the target BP vs. 12% in the UC group (p<0.05), and 21% vs. 9% at 12 months (p: ns). Multivariate analyses, taking account of baseline characteristics, therapy modification during follow-up, and clustering effects by network, indicate that being allocated to the INT group was associated with a greater odds of reaching the target BP at 4 months (p<0.01) and at 12 months (p=0.051). CONCLUSION: GPs monitoring drug adherence in collaboration with pharmacists achieved a better BP control in hypertensive patients, although the impact of monitoring decreased with time.

Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care: external validation of a clinical prediction rule.

BACKGROUND: The Marburg Heart Score (MHS) aims to assist GPs in safely ruling out coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients presenting with chest pain, and to guide management decisions. AIM: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the MHS in an independent sample and to evaluate the generalisability to new patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional diagnostic study with delayed-type reference standard in general practice in Hesse, Germany. METHOD: Fifty-six German GPs recruited 844 males and females aged ≥ 35 years, presenting between July 2009 and February 2010 with chest pain. Baseline data included the items of the MHS. Data on the subsequent course of chest pain, investigations, hospitalisations, and medication were collected over 6 months and were reviewed by an independent expert panel. CHD was the reference condition. Measures of diagnostic accuracy included the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and predictive values. RESULTS: The AUC was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80 to 0.88). For a cut-off value of 3, the MHS showed a sensitivity of 89.1% (95% CI = 81.1% to 94.0%), a specificity of 63.5% (95% CI = 60.0% to 66.9%), a positive predictive value of 23.3% (95% CI = 19.2% to 28.0%), and a negative predictive value of 97.9% (95% CI = 96.2% to 98.9%). CONCLUSION: Considering the diagnostic accuracy of the MHS, its generalisability, and ease of application, its use in clinical practice is recommended.

Development of mental disorders one year after exposure to psychosocial stressors; a cohort study in primary care patients with a physical complaint.

BACKGROUND: Mental disorders, common in primary care, are often associated with physical complaints. While exposure to psychosocial stressors and development or presence of principal mental disorders (i.e. depression, anxiety and somatoform disorders defined as multisomatoforme disorders) is commonly correlated, temporal association remains unproven. The study explores the onset of such disorders after exposure to psychosocial stressors in a cohort of primary care patients with at least one physical symptom. METHOD: The cohort study SODA (SOmatization, Depression and Anxiety) was conducted by 21 private-practice GPs and three fellow physicians in a Swiss academic primary care centre. GPs included patients via randomized daily identifiers. Depression, anxiety or somatoform disorders were identified by the full Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ), a validated procedure to identify mental disorders based on DSM-IV criteria. The PHQ was also used to investigate exposure to psychosocial stressors (before the index consultation and during follow up) and the onset of principal mental disorders after one year of follow up. RESULTS: From November 2004 to July 2005, 1020 patients were screened for inclusion. 627 were eligible and 482 completed the PHQ one year later and were included in the analysis (77%). At one year, prevalence of principal mental disorders was 30/153 (19.6% CI95% 13.6; 26.8) for those initially exposed to a major psychosocial stressor and 26/329 (7.9% CI95% 5.2; 11.4) for those not. Stronger association exists between psychosocial stressors and depression (RR = 2.4) or anxiety (RR = 3.5) than multisomatoforme disorders (RR = 1.8). Patients who are "bothered a lot" (subjective distress) by a stressor are therefore 2.5 times (CI95% 1.5; 4.0) more likely to experience a mental disorder at one year. A history of psychiatric comorbidities or psychological treatment was not a confounding factor for developing a principal mental disorder after exposure to psychosocial stressors. CONCLUSION: This primary care study shows that patients with physical complaints exposed to psychosocial stressors had a higher risk for developing mental disorders one year later. This temporal association opens the field for further research in preventive care for mental diseases in primary care patients.

Evaluation de la formation PAPRICA (Physical Activity promotion in PRimary CAre)

La littérature indique que parmi les différents moyens de promotion de l'activité physique, le conseil par le médecin constitue une voie efficace. La formation PAPRICA, suivie à ce jour par env. 200 médecins, a pour but de promouvoir l'activité physique des patients par les médecins de premier recours. La présente recherche étudie la mise en oeuvre par les médecins des acquis de cette formation. Les données ont été recueillies grâce à un questionnaire à tous les participants, ainsi qu'à des entretiens téléphoniques auprès d'un échantillon plus restreint. Les principaux thèmes abordés concernent les apports de la formation, la pratique effective au cabinet et la satisfaction du médecin. [Auteurs, p. 7]

Le Resident Assessment Instrument-Home-Care (RAI-Domicile): ce que le médecin de premier recours doit savoir [The Resident Assessment Instrument Home care: what primary care physician needs to know].

Following the decision of the Swiss Association for Home Care Services to adopt the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI), the RAI-Home Care is gradually implemented in all home care services in Switzerland. Based on a comprehensive geriatric assessment, the RAI not only allows to establish an individualized plan of care, but also generates quality indicators and a case-mix classification system that helps financing and planning resources. This article describes the five steps of the RAI-Home Care process and discusses the strengths, future and limitations of the RAI.

Detecting and measuring deprivation in primary care: development, validity and reliability of a self-reported questionnaire - the DiPCare-Q

Background: General practitioners play a central role in taking deprivation into consideration when caring for patients in primary care. Validated questions to identify deprivation in primary-care practices are still lacking. For both clinical and research purposes, this study therefore aims to develop and validate a standardized instrument measuring both material and social deprivation at an individual level. Methods: The Deprivation in Primary Care Questionnaire (DiPCare-Q) was developed using qualitative and quantitative approaches between 2008 and 2011. A systematic review identified 199 questions related to deprivation. Using judgmental item quality, these were reduced to 38 questions. Two focus groups (primary-care physicians, and primary-care researchers), structured interviews (10 laymen), and think aloud interviews (eight cleaning staff) assured face validity. Item response theory analysis was then used to derive the DiPCare-Q index using data obtained from a random sample of 200 patients who were to complete the questionnaire a second time over the phone. For construct and criterion validity, the final 16 questions were administered to a random sample of 1,898 patients attending one of 47 different private primary-care practices in western Switzerland (validation set) along with questions on subjective social status (subjective SES ladder), education, source of income, welfare status, and subjective poverty. Results: Deprivation was defined in three distinct dimensions (table); material deprivation (eight items), social deprivation (five items) and health deprivation (three items). Item consistency was high in both the derivation (KR20 = 0.827) and the validation set (KR20 = 0.778). The DiPCare-Q index was reliable (ICC = 0.847). For construct validity, we showed the DiPCare-Q index to be correlated to patients' estimation of their position on the subjective SES ladder (rs = 0.539). This position was correlated to both material and social deprivation independently suggesting two separate mechanisms enhancing the feeling of deprivation. Conclusion: The DiPCare-Q is a rapid, reliable and validated instrument useful for measuring both material and social deprivation in primary care. Questions from the DiPCare-Q are easy to use when investigating patients' social history and could improve clinicians' ability to detect underlying social distress related to deprivation.

Self-reported smoking cessation activities among Swiss primary care physicians.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Individual counselling, pharmacotherapy, and group therapy are evidence-based interventions that help patients stop smoking. Acupuncture, hypnosis, and relaxation have no demonstrated efficacy on smoking cessation, whereas self-help material may only have a small benefit. The purpose of this study is to assess physicians' current clinical practice regarding smokers motivated to stop smoking. METHODS: The survey included 3385 Swiss primary care physicians. Self-reported use of nine smoking cessation interventions was scored. One point was given for each positive answer about practicing interventions with demonstrated efficacy, i.e. nicotine replacement therapy, bupropion, counselling, group therapy, and smoking cessation specialist. No points were given for the recommendation of acupuncture, hypnosis, relaxation, and self-help material. Multivariable logistic analysis was performed to identify factors associated with a good practice score, defined as >1. RESULTS: The response rate was 55%. Respondents were predominately over the age of 40 years (88%), male (79%), and resided in urban areas (74%). Seventeen percent reported being smokers. Most of the physicians prescribed nicotine replacement therapy (84%), bupropion (65%), or provided counselling (70%). A minority of physicians recommended acupuncture (26%), hypnosis (8%), relaxation (7%), or self-help material (24%). A good practice score was obtained by 85% of respondents. Having attended a smoking cessation training program was the only significant predictor of a good practice score (odds ratio: 6.24 , 95% CI 1.95-20.04). CONCLUSION: The majority of respondents practice recommended smoking cessation interventions. However, there is room for improvement and implementing an evidence-based smoking cessation-training program could provide additional benefit.

Development and validation of a clinical prediction rule for chest wall syndrome in primary care.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Chest wall syndrome (CWS), the main cause of chest pain in primary care practice, is most often an exclusion diagnosis. We developed and evaluated a clinical prediction rule for CWS. METHODS: Data from a multicenter clinical cohort of consecutive primary care patients with chest pain were used (59 general practitioners, 672 patients). A final diagnosis was determined after 12 months of follow-up. We used the literature and bivariate analyses to identify candidate predictors, and multivariate logistic regression was used to develop a clinical prediction rule for CWS. We used data from a German cohort (n = 1212) for external validation. RESULTS: From bivariate analyses, we identified six variables characterizing CWS: thoracic pain (neither retrosternal nor oppressive), stabbing, well localized pain, no history of coronary heart disease, absence of general practitioner's concern, and pain reproducible by palpation. This last variable accounted for 2 points in the clinical prediction rule, the others for 1 point each; the total score ranged from 0 to 7 points. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.76-0.83) in the derivation cohort (specificity: 89%; sensitivity: 45%; cut-off set at 6 points). Among all patients presenting CWS (n = 284), 71% (n = 201) had a pain reproducible by palpation and 45% (n = 127) were correctly diagnosed. For a subset (n = 43) of these correctly classified CWS patients, 65 additional investigations (30 electrocardiograms, 16 thoracic radiographies, 10 laboratory tests, eight specialist referrals, one thoracic computed tomography) had been performed to achieve diagnosis. False positives (n = 41) included three patients with stable angina (1.8% of all positives). External validation revealed the ROC curve to be 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.73-0.79) with a sensitivity of 22% and a specificity of 93%. CONCLUSIONS: This CWS score offers a useful complement to the usual CWS exclusion diagnosing process. Indeed, for the 127 patients presenting CWS and correctly classified by our clinical prediction rule, 65 additional tests and exams could have been avoided. However, the reproduction of chest pain by palpation, the most important characteristic to diagnose CWS, is not pathognomonic.

A simple score for estimating ischemic heart disease in patients with non-traumatic chest pain in primary care

Background: Modelling epidemiological knowledge in validated clinical scores is a practical mean of integrating EBM to usual care. Existing scores about cardiovascular disease have been largely developed in emergency settings, but few in primary care. Such a toll is needed for general practitioners (GP) to evaluate the probability of ischemic heart disease (IHD) in patients with non-traumatic chest pain. Objective: To develop a predictive model to use as a clinical score for detecting IHD in patients with non-traumatic chest-pain in primary care. Methods: A post-hoc secondary analysis on data from an observational study including 672 patients with chest pain of which 85 had IHD diagnosed by their GP during the year following their inclusion. Best subset method was used to select 8 predictive variables from univariate analysis and fitted in a multivariate logistic regression model to define the score. Reliability of the model was assessed using split-group method. Results: Significant predictors were: age (0-3 points), gender (1 point), having at least one cardiovascular risks factor (hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, smoking, family history of CVD; 3 points), personal history of cardiovascular disease (1 point), duration of chest pain from 1 to 60 minutes (2 points), substernal chest pain (1 point), pain increasing with exertion (1 point) and absence of tenderness at palpation (1 point). Area under the ROC curve for the score was of 0.95 (IC95% 0.93; 0.97). Patients were categorised in three groups, low risk of IHD (score under 6; n = 360), moderate risk of IHD (score from 6 to 8; n = 187) and high risk of IHD (score from 9-13; n = 125). Prevalence of IHD in each group was respectively of 0%, 6.7%, 58.5%. Reliability of the model seems satisfactory as the model developed from the derivation set predicted perfectly (p = 0.948) the number of patients in each group in the validation set. Conclusion: This clinical score based only on history and physical exams can be an important tool in the practice of the general physician for the prediction of ischemic heart disease in patients complaining of chest pain. The score below 6 points (in more than half of our population) can avoid demanding complementary exams for selected patients (ECG, laboratory tests) because of the very low risk of IHD. Score above 6 points needs investigation to detect or rule out IHD. Further external validation is required in ambulatory settings.