886 resultados para PRIMARY-CARE PATIENTS
Resumo:
This study examines predictors of sickness absence in patients presenting to a health practitioner with acute/ subacute low back pain (LBP). Aims of this study were to identify baseline-variables that detect patients with a new LBP episode at risk of sickness absence and to identify prognostic models for sickness absence at different time points after initial presentation. Prospective cohort study investigating 310 patients presenting to a health practitioner with a new episode of LBP at baseline, three-, six-, twelve-week and six-month follow-up, addressing work-related, psychological and biomedical factors. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify baseline-predictors of sickness absence at different time points. Prognostic models comprised 'job control', 'depression' and 'functional limitation' as predictive baseline-factors of sickness absence at three and six-week follow-up with 'job control' being the best single predictor (OR 0.47; 95%CI 0.26-0.87). The six-week model explained 47% of variance of sickness absence at six-week follow-up (p<0.001). The prediction of sickness absence beyond six-weeks is limited, and health practitioners should re-assess patients at six weeks, especially if they have previously been identified as at risk of sickness absence. This would allow timely intervention with measures designed to reduce the likelihood of prolonged sickness absence.
Resumo:
Objective. To examine effects of primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients on the association between charges for primary care and specialty care in a point-of-service (POS) health plan. Data Source. Claims from 1996 for 3,308 adult male POS plan members, each of whom was assigned to one of the 50 family practitioner-PCPs with the largest POS plan member-loads. Study Design. A hierarchical multivariate two-part model was fitted using a Gibbs sampler to estimate PCPs' effects on patients' annual charges for two types of services, primary care and specialty care, the associations among PCPs' effects, and within-patient associations between charges for the two services. Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACGs) were used to adjust for case-mix. Principal Findings. PCPs with higher case-mix adjusted rates of specialist use were less likely to see their patients at least once during the year (estimated correlation: –.40; 95% CI: –.71, –.008) and provided fewer services to patients that they saw (estimated correlation: –.53; 95% CI: –.77, –.21). Ten of 11 PCPs whose case-mix adjusted effects on primary care charges were significantly less than or greater than zero (p < .05) had estimated, case-mix adjusted effects on specialty care charges that were of opposite sign (but not significantly different than zero). After adjustment for ACG and PCP effects, the within-patient, estimated odds ratio for any use of primary care given any use of specialty care was .57 (95% CI: .45, .73). Conclusions. PCPs and patients contributed independently to a trade-off between utilization of primary care and specialty care. The trade-off appeared to partially offset significant differences in the amount of care provided by PCPs. These findings were possible because we employed a hierarchical multivariate model rather than separate univariate models.
Resumo:
Background The study is part of a nationwide evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in primary care in Switzerland. The Objective was to identify patients' expectations and reasons governing the choice of complementary medicine compared with conventional primary care (CONV). Methods The data were derived from the PEK study (Programm Evaluation Komplementärmedizin), which was conducted in 2002–2003 with 7879 adult patients and parents of 1291 underage patients, seeking either complementary (CAM) or conventional (CONV) primary care. The study was performed as a cross-sectional survey. The respondents were asked to document their (or their children's) self-perceived health status, reasons governing their choice, and treatment expectations. Physicians were practicing conventional medicine and/or complementary methods (homeopathy, anthroposophic medicine, neural therapy, and traditional Chinese medicine). Reasons governing the choice of physician were evaluated on the basis of a three-part classification (physician-related, procedure-related, and pragmatic/other reasons) Results and Discussion Patients seeing CAM physicians tend to be younger and more often female. CAM patients referred to procedure-related reasons more frequently, whereas pragmatic reasons dominated among CONV patients. CAM respondents expected fewer adverse side effects compared to conventional care patients. Conclusion The majority of alternative medicine users appear to have chosen CAM mainly because they wish to undergo a certain procedure; additional reasons include desire for more comprehensive treatment, and expectation of fewer side-effects.
Resumo:
PURPOSE: Venlafaxine has shown benefit in the treatment of depression and pain. Worldwide data are extensively lacking investigating the outcome of chronic pain patients with depressive symptoms treated by venlafaxine in the primary care setting. This observational study aimed to elucidate the efficacy of venlafaxine and its prescription by Swiss primary care physicians and psychiatrists in patients with chronic pain and depressive symptomatology. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We studied 505 patients with depressive symptoms suffering from chronic pain in a prospective naturalistic Swiss community based observational trial with venlafaxine in primary care. These patients have been treated with venlafaxine by 122 physicians, namely psychiatrists, general practitioners, and internists. RESULTS: On average, patients were treated with 143+/-75 mg (0-450 mg) venlafaxine daily for a follow-up of three months. Venlafaxine proved to be beneficial in the treatment of both depressive symptoms and chronic pain. DISCUSSION: Although side effects were absent in most patients, physicians might have frequently omitted satisfactory response rate of depression by underdosing venlafaxine. Our results reflect the complexity in the treatment of chronic pain in patients with depressive symptoms in primary care. CONCLUSION: Further randomized dose-finding studies are needed to learn more about the appropriate dosage in treating depression and comorbid pain with venlafaxine.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND Rivaroxaban has become an alternative to vitamin-K antagonists (VKA) for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients due to its favourable risk-benefit profile in the restrictive setting of a large randomized trial. However in the primary care setting, physician's motivation to begin with rivaroxaban, treatment satisfaction and the clinical event rate after the initiation of rivaroxaban are not known. METHODS Prospective data collection by 115 primary care physicians in Switzerland on consecutive nonvalvular AF patients with newly established rivaroxaban anticoagulation with 3-month follow-up. RESULTS We enrolled 537 patients (73±11years, 57% men) with mean CHADS2 and HAS-BLED-scores of 2.2±1.3 and 2.4±1.1, respectively: 301(56%) were switched from VKA to rivaroxaban (STR-group) and 236(44%) were VKA-naïve (VN-group). Absence of routine coagulation monitoring (68%) and fixed-dose once-daily treatment (58%) were the most frequent criteria for physicians to initiate rivaroxaban. In the STR-group, patient's satisfaction increased from 3.6±1.4 under VKA to 5.5±0.8 points (P<0.001), and overall physician satisfaction from 3.9±1.3 to 5.4±0.9 points (P<0.001) at 3months of rivaroxaban therapy (score from 1 to 6 with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction). In the VN-group, both patient's (5.4±0.9) and physician's satisfaction (5.5±0.7) at follow-up were comparable to the STR-group. During follow-up, 1(0.19%; 95%CI, 0.01-1.03%) ischemic stroke, 2(0.37%; 95%CI, 0.05-1.34%) major non-fatal bleeding and 11(2.05%; 95%CI, 1.03-3.64%) minor bleeding complications occurred. Rivaroxaban was stopped in 30(5.6%) patients, with side effects being the most frequent reason. CONCLUSION Initiation of rivaroxaban for patients with nonvalvular AF by primary care physicians was associated with a low clinical event rate and with high overall patient's and physician's satisfaction.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES Primary care physicians (PCPs) should prescribe faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening based on their patient's values and preferences. However, there are wide variations between PCPs in the screening method prescribed. The objective was to assess the impact of an educational intervention on PCPs' intent to offer FIT or colonoscopy on an equal basis. DESIGN Survey before and after training seminars, with a parallel comparison through a mailed survey to PCPs not attending the training seminars. SETTING All PCPs in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS Of 592 eligible PCPs, 133 (22%) attended a seminar and 106 (80%) filled both surveys. 109 (24%) PCPs who did not attend the seminars returned the mailed survey. INTERVENTION A 2 h-long interactive seminar targeting PCP knowledge, skills and attitudes regarding offering a choice of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options. OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was PCP intention of having their patients screened with FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions (between 40% and 60% each). Secondary outcomes were the perceived role of PCPs in screening decisions (from paternalistic to informed decision-making) and correct answer to a clinical vignette. RESULTS Before the seminars, 8% of PCPs reported that they had equal proportions of their patients screened for CRC by FIT and colonoscopy; after the seminar, 33% foresaw having their patients screened in equal proportions (p<0.001). Among those not attending, there was no change (13% vs 14%, p=0.8). Of those attending, there was no change in their perceived role in screening decisions, while the proportion responding correctly to a clinical vignette increased (88-99%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS An interactive training seminar increased the proportion of physicians with the intention to prescribe FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions.
Resumo:
Acknowledgements The iHARP database was funded by unrestricted grants from Mundipharma International Ltd and Research in Real-Life Ltd; these analyses were funded by an unrestricted grant from Teva Pharmaceuticals. Mundipharma and Teva played no role in study conduct or analysis and did not modify or approve the manuscript. The authors wish to direct a special appreciation to all the participants of the iHARP group who contributed data to this study and to Mundipharma, sponsors of the iHARP group. In addition, we thank Julie von Ziegenweidt for assistance with data extraction and Anna Gilchrist and Valerie L. Ashton, PhD, for editorial assistance. Elizabeth V. Hillyer, DVM, provided editorial and writing support, funded by Research in Real-Life, Ltd.