Patient consultations during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a mixed-method cross-sectional study in 16 European countries.

INTRODUCTION: Remote consultations help reduce contact between people and prevent cross-contamination. Little is known about the changes in consultation in European rural primary care during the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. The purpose of this mixed-methods cross-sectional study was to find out more about the effects of the pandemic on changes in patient consultations in European rural primary care. METHODS: A key informant survey from 16 member countries of the European Rural and Isolated Practitioners Association (EURIPA) was undertaken using a self-developed questionnaire. The steering committee of this project, called EURIPA Covid-19 study, developed a semi-structured questionnaire with 68 questions, 21 of which included free-text comments. Proportions were calculated for dichotomized or categorized data, and means were calculated for continuous data. Multivariate analysis by logistic regression model was used to assess the association of multiple variables. RESULTS: A total of 406 questionnaires from primary care providers (PCPs) in 16 European countries were collected; 245 respondents (60.5%) were females, 152 PCPs were rural (37.5%), 124 semi-rural (30.5%). Mean age of the respondents was 45.9 years (standard deviation (SD) 11.30) while mean seniority (length of experience) was 18.2 years (SD 11.6). A total of 381 (93.8%) respondents were medical doctors. Significant differences were found between countries in adopting alternative arrangements to face-to-face consultation: remote teleconsultation is well appreciated by both healthcare professionals and patients, but the most common way of remote consultation remains telephone consultation. A factor significantly inversely associated with the adoption of video consultation was the seniority of the PCP (odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.40, p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Telephone consultation is the most common form of remote consultation. The adoption of video-consultation is inversely related to the seniority of the informants.

The Importance of Family History in Breast Cancer Patients in Primary Care Setting: a Cross-sectional Study.

Screening recommendations of physicians are important for women to raise awareness about their risk factors and to promote appropriate screening behaviors. However, it seems challenging for primary care physicians (PCPs) to balance disease prevention and diagnosis, treatment. The objective of this study was to describe physicians' breast cancer consultancy practice including family history, cancer prevention issues for the women they care. This cross-sectional study included 577 women aged above 45 years, free of breast cancer, during their visits to their PCPs. Nearly half of the women reported their visit to PCPs for an annual examination during the year. Among them, 36.1% had first-degree relatives with cancer and 7.3% with breast cancer. But they reported to be asked about family history of cancer and informed about cancer prevention issues 35.1 and 26.4%, respectively. Cancer still seems to be a hard issue to be discussed, even with women visiting PCPs for annual examination. Asking first-degree relative with breast cancer can give PCPs the chance of determining women with increased risk and support women's appropriate understanding of their own risk in relation to their family history. This routine can make shared-decision making for developing person-centered approach for breast cancer screening possible. Further studies are needed for better understanding of loss of consultancy leadership of physicians for breast cancer.

Breast cancer risk perceptions of Turkish women attending primary care: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: As the risks and benefits of early detection and primary prevention strategies for breast cancer are beginning to be quantified, the risk perception of women has become increasingly important as may affect their screening behaviors. This study evaluated the women's breast cancer risk perception and their accuracy, and determined the factors that can affect their risk perception accuracy. METHODS: Data was collected in a cross-sectional survey design. Questionnaire, including breast cancer risk factors, risk perceptions and screening behaviors, answered by 624 women visiting primary health care center (PHCC). "Perceived risk" investigated with numeric and verbal measures. Accuracy of risk perception was determined by women's Gail 5-year risk scores. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 59.62 ± 1.97 years. Of the women 6.7% had a first-degree relative with breast cancer, 68.9% performed breast self-examination and 62.3% had a mammography, and 82.9% expressed their breast cancer worry as "low". The numeric measure correlated better with worry and Gail scores. Of the women 65.5% perceived their breast cancer risk accurately. Among the women in "high risk" group 65.7% underestimated, while in "average risk" group 25.4% overestimated their risk. CONCLUSIONS: Turkish women visiting PHCC are overtly and overly optimistic. This was especially obvious with the result that nearly one third had had no mammography. There is a need for further studies to understand why and how this optimism is maintained so that better screening strategies can be applied at PHCC. All health workers working at PHCC have to be aware of this optimism to prevent missed opportunities for cancer screening.

A survey of knowledge, attitudes and practices relating to emergency contraception among health workers in Manisa, Turkey.

OBJECTIVE: to determine knowledge, attitudes and practices relating to emergency contraception among health-care providers (general practitioners, nurses and midwives). DESIGN: a cross-sectional design using face-to-face interview methods plus questionnaire in the work setting. Researchers were able to maintain privacy by using priority strategies. SETTING: 18 primary health-care units in Manisa, western Turkey. SAMPLE: 182 health-care providers (general practitioners [n = 72]; nurses and midwives [n = 110] were invited to participate in the study, but 26 of them declined. PARTICIPANTS: 156 health-care providers. As 16 participants had not heard of emergency contraception, 140 health-care providers (general practitioners [n = 51] and nurses and midwives [n = 89]) were included. FINDINGS: of the health-care providers, almost one in 10 was unfamiliar with the term 'emergency contraception'. Only a few health-care providers knew how to use the intra-uterine contraceptive device (IUCD) for emergency contraception and the doses of emergency contraceptive pills. Some health-care providers included emergency contraception in routine consultations, but many did not support the use of emergency contraception in Turkey. Many of the providers thought that young people should not know about emergency contraception. KEY CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: knowledge among health-care providers about emergency contraception is inadequate. All health-care providers should know about emergency contraception and include it in routine contraceptive consultations. Thus, continuing education information programmes are required. Further research into the knowledge, practices and attitudes of health-care providers is needed to understand the underlying reasons for the hesitant attitudes among health professionals.