Gender Differences in Perceived Working Conditions of General Practitioners During the COVID-19 Pandemic-a Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has revealed gender-specific differences between general practitioners in adapting to the posed challenges. As primary care workforce is becoming increasingly female, in many countries, it is essential to take a closer look at gender-specific influences when the global health care system is confronted with a crisis. OBJECTIVE: To explore gender-specific differences in the perceived working conditions and gender-specific differences in challenges facing GPs at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. DESIGN: Online survey in seven countries. PARTICIPANTS: 2,602 GPs from seven countries (Austria, Australia, Switzerland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia). Of the respondents, 44.4% (n = 1,155) were women. MAIN MEASURES: Online survey. We focused on gender-specific differences in general practitioners' perceptions of working conditions at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. KEY RESULTS: Female GPs rated their skills and self-confidence significantly lower than male GPs (f: 7.1, 95%CI: 6.9-7.3 vs. m: 7.6, 95%CI 7.4-7.8; p < .001), and their perceived risk (concerned about becoming infected or infecting others) higher than men (f: 5.7, 95%CI: 5.4-6.0 vs. m: 5.1, 95%CI: 4.8-5.5; p = .011). Among female GPs, low self-confidence in the treatment of COVID-19 patients appear to be common. Results were similar in all of the participating countries. CONCLUSIONS: Female and male GPs differed in terms of their self-confidence when dealing with COVID-19-related issues and their perceptions of the risks arising from the pandemic. To ensure optimal medical care, it is important that GPs realistically assess their own abilities and overall risk.

Facilitators and barriers in general practitioners' choice to work in primary care units in Austria: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Recent reforms in Austria have focused on establishing team-based care within multiprofessional primary care units, to enhance amongst others, the work attractiveness of general practice. Nearly 75% of qualified general practitioners are not working as contracted physicians with the social health insurance. This study aims to explore the facilitators of and barriers to non-contracted general practitioners to work in a primary care unit. METHODS: We conducted twelve semi-structured, problem-centered interviews among purposively sampled non-contracted general practitioners. To extract categories of facilitators and barriers for working in a primary care unit, transcribed interviews were inductively coded using qualitative content analysis. Subcategories were grouped into factors (facilitators and barriers) of thematic criteria and mapped on the macro-, meso-, micro-, and individual levels. RESULTS: We identified 41 categories, including 21 facilitators and 20 barriers. Most facilitators were located at the micro-level, while most barriers were located at the macro-level. Teamwork and associated conditions made primary care units attractive as workplaces and corresponded with individual demands. In contrast, system factors tended to reduce the attractiveness of working as a general practitioner. CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted efforts are needed to address relevant factors at all of the levels mentioned above. These need to be carried out and consistently communicated by all stakeholders. Efforts to strengthen the holistic approach in primary care, like modern remuneration and patient steering mechanisms, are essential. Financial support, consulting services as well as training on entrepreneurship, management, leadership, and team-based care may help to reduce the risk and burden of founding and running a primary care unit.

Preemptive local analgesia at vaginal hysterectomy: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of local preemptive analgesia for postoperative pain control in women undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched systematically to identify eligible studies published through September 25, 2019. Only randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews addressing local preemptive analgesia compared to placebo at vaginal hysterectomy were considered. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Results were compared, and disagreement was resolved by discussion. Forty-seven studies met inclusion criteria for full-text review. Four RCTs, including a total of 197 patients, and two SRs were included in the review. RESULTS: Preemptive local analgesia reduced postoperative pain scores up to 6 h and postoperative opioid requirements in the first 24 h after surgery. CONCLUSION: Preemptive local analgesia at vaginal hysterectomy results in less postoperative pain and less postoperative opioid consumption.

Long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in people with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: All major guidelines for antihypertensive therapy recommend weight loss. Dietary interventions that aim to reduce body weight might therefore be a useful intervention to reduce blood pressure and adverse cardiovascular events associated with hypertension. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives To assess the long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in people with hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events). Secondary objectives To assess the long-term effects of weight-reducing diets in people with hypertension on change from baseline in systolic blood pressure, change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure, and body weight reduction. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2020, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least 24 weeks' duration that compared weight-reducing dietary interventions to no dietary intervention in adults with primary hypertension. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risks of bias and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. In case of moderate or larger heterogeneity as measured by Higgins I2, we used a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: This second review update did not reveal any new trials, so the number of included trials remains the same: eight RCTs involving a total of 2100 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 45 to 66 years. Mean treatment duration was 6 to 36 months. We judged the risks of bias as unclear or high for all but two trials. No study included mortality as a predefined outcome. One RCT evaluated the effects of dietary weight loss on a combined endpoint consisting of the necessity of reinstating antihypertensive therapy and severe cardiovascular complications. In this RCT, weight-reducing diet lowered the endpoint compared to no diet: hazard ratio 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.87). None of the trials evaluated adverse events as designated in our protocol. The certainty of the evidence was low for a blood pressure reduction in participants assigned to weight-loss diets as compared to controls: systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) -4.5 mm Hg (95% CI -7.2 to -1.8 mm Hg) (3 studies, 731 participants), and diastolic blood pressure: MD -3.2 mm Hg (95% CI -4.8 to -1.5 mm Hg) (3 studies, 731 participants). We judged the certainty of the evidence to be high for weight reduction in dietary weight loss groups as compared to controls: MD -4.0 kg (95% CI -4.8 to -3.2) (5 trials, 880 participants). Two trials used withdrawal of antihypertensive medication as their primary outcome. Even though we did not consider this a relevant outcome for our review, the results of these RCTs strengthen the finding of a reduction of blood pressure by dietary weight-loss interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this second update, the conclusions remain unchanged, as we found no new trials. In people with primary hypertension, weight-loss diets reduced body weight and blood pressure, but the magnitude of the effects are uncertain due to the small number of participants and studies included in the analyses. Whether weight loss reduces mortality and morbidity is unknown. No useful information on adverse effects was reported in the relevant trials.

Long-term effects of weight-reducing drugs in people with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: This is the third update of this review, first published in July 2009. All major guidelines on treatment of hypertension recommend weight loss; anti-obesity drugs may be able to help in this respect. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, and adverse events (including total serious adverse events, withdrawal due to adverse events, and total non-serious adverse events).. Secondary objectives: To assess the long-term effects of pharmacologically-induced reduction in body weight in adults with essential hypertension on change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and on body weight reduction. SEARCH METHODS: For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to March 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The searches had no language restrictions. We contacted authors of relevant papers about further published and unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of at least 24 weeks' duration in adults with hypertension that compared approved long-term weight-loss medications to placebo.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, and extracted data. Where appropriate and in the absence of significant heterogeneity between studies (P > 0.1), we pooled studies using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. When heterogeneity was present, we used the random-effects method and investigated the cause of the heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: This third update of the review added one new trial, investigating the combination of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo. Two medications, which were included in the previous versions of this review (rimonabant and sibutramine) are no longer considered relevant for this update, since their marketing approval was withdrawn in 2010 and 2009, respectively. The number of included studies in this review update is therefore six (12,724 participants in total): four RCTs comparing orlistat to placebo, involving a total of 3132 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 46 to 55 years; one trial comparing phentermine/topiramate to placebo, involving 1305 participants with high blood pressure and a mean age of 53 years; and one trial comparing naltrexone/bupropion to placebo, involving 8283 participants with hypertension and a mean age of 62 years. We judged the risks of bias to be unclear for the trials investigating orlistat or naltrexone/bupropion. and low for the trial investigating phentermine/topiramate. Only the study of naltrexone/bupropion included cardiovascular mortality and morbidity as predefined outcomes. There were no differences in the rates of all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, major cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo. The incidence of overall adverse events was significantly higher in participants treated with naltrexone/bupropion. For orlistat, the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects was consistently higher compared to placebo. The most frequent side effects with phentermine/topiramate were dry mouth and paraesthesia. After six to 12 months, orlistat reduced systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by mean difference (MD) -2.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI) -3.8 to -1.4 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants) and diastolic blood pressure by MD -2.0 mm Hg (95% CI -2.7 to -1.2 mm Hg; 4 trials, 2058 participants). After 13 months of follow-up, phentermine/topiramate decreased systolic blood pressure compared to placebo by -2.0 to -4.2 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage), and diastolic blood pressure by -1.3 to -1.9 mm Hg (1 trial, 1030 participants) (depending on drug dosage). There was no difference in the change in systolic or diastolic blood pressure between naltrexone/bupropion and placebo (1 trial, 8283 participants). We identified no relevant studies investigating liraglutide or lorcaserin in people with hypertension. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with elevated blood pressure, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate and naltrexone/bupropion reduced body weight; the magnitude of the effect was greatest with phentermine/topiramate. In the same trials, orlistat and phentermine/topiramate, but not naltrexone/bupropion, reduced blood pressure. One RCT of naltrexone/bupropion versus placebo showed no differences in all-cause mortality or cardiovascular mortality or morbidity after two years. The European Medicines Agency refused marketing authorisation for phentermine/topiramate due to safety concerns, while for lorcaserin the application for European marketing authorisation was withdrawn due to a negative overall benefit/risk balance. In 2020 lorcaserin was also withdrawn from the US market. Two other medications (rimonabant and sibutramine) had already been withdrawn from the market in 2009 and 2010, respectively.

Comprehensive catalogue of international measures aimed at preventing general practitioner shortages.

BACKGROUND: Many countries are facing a shortage and misallocation of general practitioners (GPs). The development of a policy response may benefit from the knowledge of worldwide policies that have been adopted and recommended to counteract such a development. AIM: To identify measures proposed or taken internationally to prevent GP shortages. DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review followed by an expert assessment focussed on sources from OECD countries. METHOD: The literature search identified international policy documents and literature reviews in bibliographical databases, and examined institutional websites and references of included publications. The internet search engine Google was also used. The resulting measures were then assessed for completeness by three experts. RESULTS: Ten policy documents and 32 literature reviews provided information on 102 distinct measures aimed at preventing GP shortages. The measures attempt to influence GPs at all stages of their careers. CONCLUSIONS: This catalogue of measures to prevent GP shortages is significantly more comprehensive than any of the policy documents it is based on. It may serve as a blueprint for effective reforms aimed at preventing GP shortages internationally.

This review identified 102 distinct measures to prevent a GP shortage. These measures influence GPs at all stages of their careers. These measures may serve as a blueprint for reforms to prevent GP shortages.

Attitudes of medical students to general practice: a multinational cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: A shortage of general practitioners (GPs) is common to many European countries. To counteract this, it is essential to understand the factors that encourage or discourage medical students from choosing to become a GP. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate medical students' attitudes towards general practice and to identify factors that discourage them from considering a career as a GP. METHODS: In this multinational cross-sectional online survey, 29 284 students from nine German, four Austrian and two Slovenian universities were invited to answer a questionnaire consisting of 146 closed and 13 open-ended items. RESULTS: Of the 4486 students that responded (response rate: 15.3%), 3.6% wanted to become a GP, 48.1% were undecided and 34.6% did not want to be a GP. Significant predictors for interest in becoming a GP were higher age [odds ratio (OR) = 1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02-1.10], positive evaluation of the content of a GP's work (OR = 4.44; 95% CI = 3.26-6.06), organizational aspects (OR = 1.42; 95% CI = 1.13-1.78), practical experience of general practice (OR = 1.66; 95% CI = 1.08-2.56) and the country of the survey [Slovenian versus German students (Reference): OR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.10-4.38; Austrian versus German students (Reference): OR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.32-0.79]. CONCLUSION: Strategies to convince undecided students to opt for a career as a GP should include a positive representation of a GP's work and early and repeated experience of working in a general practice during medical school.

[Interprofessional Care of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis from the Perspective of a General Practitioner Perspective: Results of a Cross-sectional Study]. / Interprofessionelle Versorgung von Patienten mit rheumatoider Arthritis aus hausärztlicher Sicht: Ergebnisse einer Querschnittserhebung.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners, specialists, occupational and physical therapists, nursing services and other professional groups are all involved in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. This study aims to describe interprofessional cooperation in daily ambulatory care from the perspective of a general practitioner. METHODS: The cross-sectional study investigated cooperation between general practitioners (n=121 in 68 medical practices) and several other health care providers in Hesse and Rhineland Palatinate, Germany, from February to September 2017. It was part of the prospective cohort study PANORA (Prevalence of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP) positivity in patients with new onset of non-specific musculoskeletal symptoms). The questionnaire that was used contained closed-ended questions on socio-demographics and frequency of contact, and asked physicians to assess and weigh existing collaboration. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. RESULTS: When caring for patients with rheumatoid arthritis, 70%, of the physicians often took responsibility for synchronizing medications, and discussing diagnoses and test results. The most frequent cooperation was with rheumatologists and was considered as highly important but the least satisfactory. The second most frequent cooperation was with physical therapists and this was also rated as very important. Physicians had highest level of satisfaction with their collaboration with the nursing services. CONCLUSION: This study shows that general practitioners perform several medical tasks when treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis. During the process, they work together with several health care providers to various degrees. Cooperation with rheumatologists and physical therapists is particularly important to general practitioners; cooperation with rheumatologists is considered inadequate and in need of improvement.

[How do Migrant Women with Depression Experience Access to Care in Germany? A Qualitative Interview Study on Difficulties and Wishes of those Affected]. / Wie erleben Migrantinnen mit Depression den Zugang zu Versorgung in Deutschland? Eine qualitative Interviewstudie zu Schwierigkeiten und Wünschen Betroffener.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to find out how migrant women experience access to care for depression, what difficulties they have and what improvements they want. METHODS: Content analysis of twelve partially structured qualitative individual interviews with first-generation migrant women who were treated for depression in Germany. RESULTS: Difficulties with accessing care included a lack of knowledge about symptoms of depression and treatment options, dealing with stigmatization and prejudices, lack of treatment coordination and professional advice, especially regarding outpatient psychotherapy, long waiting times and difficulties in communication. To improve access to care, patients suggested destigmatizing public information campaigns on depression, better information material, more and improved counseling options for patients as well as language support especially at the beginning of treatment. CONCLUSION: There is room for improvement regarding access to care for migrant women with depression. Their difficulties and wishes should be given more consideration when planning care services and treatment.

(Ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues versus NPH insulin (human isophane insulin) for adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Evidence that antihyperglycaemic therapy is beneficial for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus is conflicting. While the United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) found tighter glycaemic control to be positive, other studies, such as the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial, found the effects of an intensive therapy to lower blood glucose to near normal levels to be more harmful than beneficial. Study results also showed different effects for different antihyperglycaemic drugs, regardless of the achieved blood glucose levels. In consequence, firm conclusions on the effect of interventions on patient-relevant outcomes cannot be drawn from the effect of these interventions on blood glucose concentration alone. In theory, the use of newer insulin analogues may result in fewer macrovascular and microvascular events. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of long-term treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues (insulin glargine U100 and U300, insulin detemir and insulin degludec) with NPH (neutral protamine Hagedorn) insulin (human isophane insulin) in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: For this Cochrane Review update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 5 November 2019, except Embase which was last searched 26 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of treatment with (ultra-)long-acting insulin analogues to NPH in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, extracted data and evaluated the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Trials were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 24 RCTs. Of these, 16 trials compared insulin glargine to NPH insulin and eight trials compared insulin detemir to NPH insulin. In these trials, 3419 people with type 2 diabetes mellitus were randomised to insulin glargine and 1321 people to insulin detemir. The duration of the included trials ranged from 24 weeks to five years. For studies, comparing insulin glargine to NPH insulin, target values ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.8 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 140 mg/dL) for fasting blood glucose (FBG), from 4.4 mmol/L to 6.6 mmol/L (80 mg/dL to 120 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, when applicable. Blood glucose and glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) target values for studies comparing insulin detemir to NPH insulin ranged from 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for FBG, less than 6.7 mmol/L (120 mg/dL) to less than 10 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) for postprandial blood glucose, 4.0 mmol/L to 7.0 mmol/L (72 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) for nocturnal blood glucose and 5.8% to less than 6.4% HbA1c, when applicable. All trials had an unclear or high risk of bias for several risk of bias domains. Overall, insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Changes in HbA1c were comparable for long-acting insulin analogues and NPH insulin. Insulin glargine compared to NPH insulin had a risk ratio (RR) for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.01; P = 0.06; absolute risk reduction (ARR) -1.2%, 95% CI -2.0 to 0; 14 trials, 6164 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The RR for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.75 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.09; P = 0.13; ARR -0.7%, 95% CI -1.3 to 0.2; 10 trials, 4685 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with insulin glargine reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Treatment with insulin detemir compared to NPH insulin found an RR for severe hypoglycaemia of 0.45 (95% CI 0.17 to 1.20; P = 0.11; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.4 to 0.4; 5 trials, 1804 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The Peto odds ratio for serious hypoglycaemia was 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61; P = 0.007; ARR -0.9%, 95% CI -1.1 to -0.4; 5 trials, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Treatment with detemir also reduced the incidence of confirmed hypoglycaemia and confirmed nocturnal hypoglycaemia. Information on patient-relevant outcomes such as death from any cause, diabetes-related complications, health-related quality of life and socioeconomic effects was insufficient or lacking in almost all included trials. For those outcomes for which some data were available, there were no meaningful differences between treatment with glargine or detemir and treatment with NPH. There was no clear difference between insulin-analogues and NPH insulin in terms of weight gain. The incidence of adverse events was comparable for people treated with glargine or detemir, and people treated with NPH. We found no trials comparing ultra-long-acting insulin glargine U300 or insulin degludec with NPH insulin. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: While the effects on HbA1c were comparable, treatment with insulin glargine and insulin detemir resulted in fewer participants experiencing hypoglycaemia when compared with NPH insulin. Treatment with insulin detemir also reduced the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia. However, serious hypoglycaemic events were rare and the absolute risk reducing effect was low. Approximately one in 100 people treated with insulin detemir instead of NPH insulin benefited. In the studies, low blood glucose and HbA1c targets, corresponding to near normal or even non-diabetic blood glucose levels, were set. Therefore, results from the studies are only applicable to people in whom such low blood glucose concentrations are targeted. However, current guidelines recommend less-intensive blood glucose lowering for most people with type 2 diabetes in daily practice (e.g. people with cardiovascular diseases, a long history of type 2 diabetes, who are susceptible to hypoglycaemia or older people). Additionally, low-certainty evidence and trial designs that did not conform with current clinical practice meant it remains unclear if the same effects will be observed in daily clinical practice. Most trials did not report patient-relevant outcomes.

Written patient information materials used in general practices fail to meet acceptable quality standards.

BACKGROUND: Patient information materials and decision aids are essential tools for helping patients make informed decisions and share in decision-making. The aim of this study was to investigate the quality of the written patient information materials available at general practices in Styria, Austria. METHODS: We asked general practitioners to send in all patient information materials available in their practices and to answer a short questionnaire. We evaluated the materials using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP-36) instrument. RESULTS: A total of 387 different patient information materials were available for quality assessment. These materials achieved an average score of 39 out of 100. The score was below 50 for 78% of all materials. There was a significant lack of information on the evidence base of recommendations. Only 9 % of the materials provided full disclosure of their evidence sources. We also found that, despite the poor quality of the materials, 89% of general practitioners regularly make active use of them during consultations with patients. CONCLUSION: Based on international standards, the quality of patient information materials available at general practices in Styria is poor. The vast majority of the materials are not suitable as a basis for informed decisions by patients. However, most Styrian general practitioners use written patient information materials on a regular basis in their daily clinical practice. Thus, these materials not only fail to help raise the health literacy of the general population, but may actually undermine efforts to enable patients to make shared informed decisions. To increase health literacy, it is necessary to make high quality, evidence-based and easy-to-understand information material available to patients and the public. For this, it may be necessary to set up a centralized and independent clearinghouse.

Differences in the quality of oral anticoagulation therapy with vitamin K antagonists in German GP practices - results of the cluster-randomized PICANT trial (Primary Care Management for Optimized Antithrombotic Treatment).

BACKGROUND: In Germany, patients receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC) are often treated by general practitioners (GPs), and large proportions of patients receive vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). The quality of OAC in German GP practices, differences between various practices, and improvement potential through implementation of case management, have not yet been investigated satisfactorily. Based on results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial, we aimed to assess whether OAC quality can be improved, any variations between practices exist and determine practice- and patient-level factors. METHODS: The PICANT trial (2012-2015) was performed in 52 GP practices in Hesse, Germany. Adult patients with long-term indication for OAC received best practice case management in the intervention group. International normalized ratio (INR) values were recorded from anticoagulation passes. The Rosendaal method was used to calculate Time in Therapeutic Range (TTR) at patient level, and mean pooling to obtain center-specific TTR (cTTR) at practice level. The quality of OAC was assessed by TTR and cTTR. Linear model analyses were used to investigate associations between practice-/ patient-level factors and TTR. RESULTS: Inclusion of 736 patients (49.6% intervention and 50.4% control patients); 690 (93.8%) received phenprocoumon. Within 24 months, the TTR was 75.1% (SD 17.6) in the intervention versus 74.3% (SD 17.8) in the control group (p = 0.670). The cTTR averaged 75.1% (SD 6.5, range: 60.4 to 86.7%) in the intervention versus 74.3% (SD 7.2, range: 52.7 to 85.7%) in the control group (p = 0.668). At practice level, the TTR was significantly lower in practices with a male physician and certification in quality management. At patient level, the TTR was significantly higher in patients with moderate to high compliance, in men, and in patients that performed self-management. The TTR was significantly lower in patients with certain comorbidities, and who were hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention did not effectively improve OAC quality compared to routine care. Quality of INR control was generally good, but considerable variation existed between GP practices. The variability indicates optimization potential in some practices. The demonstrated association between patient-level factors and TTR highlights the importance of considering patient characteristics that may impede achieving high quality therapeutic outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN41847489 , registered 27 February 2012.

[Quality Indicators of Primary Health Care Facilities in Austria]. / Qualitätsindikatoren für Primary-Health-Care-Einrichtungen in Österreich.

BACKGROUND: The strengthening of primary health care is one major goal of the current national health reform in Austria. In this context, a new interdisciplinary concept was developed in 2014 that defines structures and requirements for future primary health care facilities. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was the development of quality indicators for the evaluation of the scheduled primary health care facilities in Austria, which are in accordance with the new Austrian concept. METHODS: We used the RAND/NPCRDC method for the development and selection of the quality indicators. We conducted systematic literature searches for existing measures in international databases for quality indicators as well as in bibliographic databases. All retrieved measures were evaluated and rated by an expert panel in a 2-step process regarding relevance and feasibility. RESULTS: Overall, the literature searches yielded 281 potentially relevant quality indicators, which were summarized to 65 different quality measures for primary health care. Out of these, the panel rated and accepted 30 measures as relevant and feasible for use in Austria. Five of these indicators were structure measures, 14 were process measures and the remaining 11 were outcome measures. Based on the Austrian primary health care concept, the final set of quality indicators was grouped in the 5 following domains: Access to primary health care (5), quality of care (15), continuity of care (5), coordination of care (4), and safety (1). CONCLUSION: This set of quality measures largely covers the four defined functions of primary health care. It enables standardized evaluation of primary health care facilities in Austria regarding the implementation of the Austrian primary health care concept as well as improvement in healthcare of the population.

[Evidence-based recommendations for the revision of the Austrian periodic health examination]. / Evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zur Überarbeitung der österreichischen Vorsorgeuntersuchung.

The Austrian periodic health examination (PHE) was introduced in 1974 as a health insurance benefit and was redesigned for the last time in 2005. Therefore, the aim of this work was to revise the scientific basis of the PHE using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We updated the scientific evidence of examinations and consultations that are currently part of the PHE and searched and integrated new examinations. We assessed the expectations of the population towards the PHE in three focus groups. A panel of experts developed evidence-based recommendations for the revised PHE. They formulated 26 recommendations on 20 target diseases or risk factors. In comparison to the previous PHE, the panel added screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm, osteoporotic fracture risk, and chronic kidney disease to the recommendations, while screening for asymptomatic bacteriuria, screening for iron deficiency/pernicious anaemia, and risk identification of glaucoma should no longer be included.

Short-acting insulin analogues versus regular human insulin for adult, non-pregnant persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: The use of short-acting insulin analogues (insulin lispro, insulin aspart, insulin glulisine) for adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes is still controversial, as reflected in many scientific debates. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of short-acting insulin analogues compared to regular human insulin in adult, non-pregnant people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the WHO ICTRP Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 31 October 2018. We placed no restrictions on the language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials with an intervention duration of at least 24 weeks that compared short-acting insulin analogues to regular human insulin in the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes, who were not pregnant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We assessed dichotomous outcomes by risk ratios (RR), and Peto odds ratios (POR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed continuous outcomes by mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. We assessed trials for certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 trials that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, randomising 2751 participants; 1388 participants were randomised to receive insulin analogues and 1363 participants to receive regular human insulin. The duration of the intervention ranged from 24 to 104 weeks, with a mean of about 41 weeks. The trial populations showed diversity in disease duration, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. None of the trials were blinded, so the risk of performance bias and detection bias, especially for subjective outcomes, such as hypoglycaemia, was high in nine of 10 trials from which we extracted data. Several trials showed inconsistencies in the reporting of methods and results.None of the included trials defined all-cause mortality as a primary outcome. Six trials provided Information on the number of participants who died during the trial, with five deaths out of 1272 participants (0.4%) in the insulin analogue groups and three deaths out of 1247 participants (0.2%) in the regular human insulin groups (Peto OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.64; P = 0.48; moderate-certainty evidence). Six trials, with 2509 participants, assessed severe hypoglycaemia differently, therefore, we could not summarise the results with a meta-analysis. Overall, the incidence of severe hypoglycaemic events was low, and none of the trials showed a clear difference between the two intervention arms (low-certainty evidence).The MD in glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) change was -0.03% (95% CI -0.16 to 0.09; P = 0.60; 9 trials, 2608 participants; low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction ranged between -0.31% and 0.25%. The MD in the overall number of non-severe hypoglycaemic episodes per participant per month was 0.08 events (95% CI 0.00 to 0.16; P = 0.05; 7 trials, 2667 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The 95% prediction interval ranged between -0.03 and 0.19 events per participant per month. The results provided for nocturnal hypoglycaemic episodes were of questionable validity. Overall, there was no clear difference between the two short-acting insulin analogues and regular human insulin. Two trials assessed health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction, but we considered the results for both outcomes to be unreliable (very low-certainty evidence).No trial was designed to investigate possible long term effects (all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications of diabetes), especially in participants with diabetes-related complications. No trial reported on socioeconomic effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found no clear benefits of short-acting insulin analogues over regular human insulin in people with type 2 diabetes. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was poor and results on patient-relevant outcomes, like all-cause mortality, microvascular or macrovascular complications and severe hypoglycaemic episodes were sparse. Long-term efficacy and safety data are needed to draw conclusions about the effects of short-acting insulin analogues on patient-relevant outcomes.

Screening interval recommendations following a normal colonoscopy in individuals with a familial risk of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: In view of the increased risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC) in individuals with affected first-degree relatives (FDRs), the German evidence-based S3 guideline recommends having the first screening colonoscopy early and then, following a normal examination, repeating it at least every 10 years. The aim of this analysis was to explore colonoscopy interval recommendations in clinical practice among individuals aged < 55 years with a familial risk of CRC. METHODS: We analyzed data from the FRIDA.Frankfurt study. Patients aged 40 - 54 years with at least 1 reported FDR with CRC (excluding suspected/known hereditary cancer syndromes) and a normal colonoscopy result (no findings) were included. Data on colonoscopist recommendations for intervals between subsequent colonoscopies were extracted from colonoscopy reports. RESULTS: Of 63 reports of normal colonoscopies, 20 (32 %) did not include a recommendation on when to undergo a further colonoscopy. Of 43 reports with recommendations, 40 (93 %) suggested an interval that was shorter than the recommended maximum interval in the guideline: 1 (2 %) was for a 3-year interval, 37 (86 %) were for 5-year intervals, and 2 (5 %) were for 8-year intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Although the low number of cases limits generalizability, the results indicate that recommended intervals in clinical practice are considerably shorter than the recommended maximum interval in the guideline.

Colorectal cancer stage at diagnosis in migrants and non-migrants: a cross-sectional analysis of the KoMigra Study in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is one leading cause of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Its prognosis depends largely on tumour stage at diagnosis. Migration status was associated with late stage at diagnosis in some studies, yet results are inconsistent. METHODS: The cross-sectional study "The Diagnostics of Colorectal Carcinoma in Migrants and Non-Migrants in Germany" (KoMigra) investigated the association between migration background and tumour stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis in a large German urban area. Patient variables were collected via a survey translated into nine languages. Data on tumour stage were extracted from medical records. RESULTS: 437 patients could be recruited for analysis. Explorative logistic regression yielded no significant difference for tumour stage "I" versus "II-IV" according to the tumour classification "Union Internationale Contre le Cancer" (UICC) between migrants and non-migrants. Although the odds of a higher tumour stage were consistently higher in migrants than non-migrants, the effect estimates had wide confidence intervals. In descriptive analyses, migrants reported symptoms more often and for longer time than non-migrants. This was especially true for patients with poor proficiency of German. CONCLUSIONS: Migration background was not significantly associated with advanced tumour stage at diagnosis. However, the effect of poor language proficiency should be explored further.

[Who Should Provide Persons with Familial Risk of Colorectal Cancer with Information on Early Detection? - The View of those Affected]. / Wer sollte zur Darmkrebsfrüherkennung bei familiärem Risiko informieren? ­ Die Sicht der Betroffenen.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is recommended for persons with a familial risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) before they reach 55 years of age. The aim of this analysis was to ask affected persons aged 40-54 years whether they had found out about early detection of CRC and from which institutions and media they would like to obtain such information. METHODS: Analysis of data from a cross-sectional study: In a general practice setting, those with a positive family history of CRC were asked to provide written information. RESULTS: In total, 191 persons with a positive family history of CRC participated in the study: 59.6% had already found out about early detection of CRC. Out of this, 67.0% had received information from their physicians. Most of the participants wanted information on early detection of CRC to be provided by the general practitioner (98.9% completely or mostly agree), and by health insurers (74.5% completely or mostly agree). The participants would rather not prefer to receive information from public institutions such as the public health department (69.5% not or mostly not agree) and private organizations such as self-help groups (80.9% not or mostly not agree). Approximately half would prefer to receive such information via TV. More men than women would prefer to source such information from the internet (completely or mostly agree: 66.7 vs. 43.8%), or newspapers and magazines (completely or mostly agree: 53.6 vs. 41.8%). CONCLUSION: A survey in a general practice setting found that more than half of persons with familial risk of CRC had already obtained information on early detection. The setting of the survey on preferred information sources possibly encouraged participants to put general practitioners in the first place. Furthermore, the results of this nationwide unique cohort of persons aged 40-54 with a familial risk of CRC show that their information-seeking behavior was not more pronounced than average and that men and women can be provided with information in different ways.

Oncologists' views on the importance of general practitioners for cancer patients: a qualitative interview study from Germany.

Background: Integrated cancer care requires cooperation between specialists and general practitioners (GPs). Mutual understanding of each other's tasks and responsibilities is essential if cooperation is to be successful. While GPs' opinions about oncologists have been addressed in previous studies, less is known about oncologists' views on the role of GPs' in cancer care, especially with regard to GPs' patient-centred, communication-based tasks. Objective: To assess oncologists' views on the importance of GPs for cancer patients. Methods: We conducted 15 qualitative guideline-based telephone interviews with oncologists using open-ended questions and analysed these interviews using thematic analysis. Results: Oncologists situated GPs as persons of trust for patients in a rather amicable sphere of caring in contrast to themselves who were situated in a rather biomedical sphere of evidence-based treatment decisions. Oncologists' appraisal of an overlapping of these spheres varied: While most stressed opportunities for patients (and themselves), others also mentioned risks. Conclusion: Our analysis found that oncologists clearly distinguish between their own sphere of evidence-based treatment decision-making and GPs' sphere of psychosocial caring. The question remains how these roles get interconnected in real life situations in order to meet patients' needs adequately. So far it seems that it is often the patient who is travelling between both spheres and needs to initiate interconnection to get comprehensive cancer care.

Frequency of a positive family history of colorectal cancer in general practice: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the frequency of a positive family history of colorectal cancer (CRC) among individuals aged <55 years is lacking. General practice setting might be well suited for the identification of individuals in this above-average risk group. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of a reported positive family history of CRC among patients aged 40 to 54 years in a general practice setting. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in 21 general practices in Germany. Patients aged 40 to 54 years were identified by means of the practice software and interviewed by health care assistants using a standardized four-item questionnaire. Outcome was occurrence of a positive family history of CRC, defined as at least one first-degree relative (FDR: parents, siblings, or children) with CRC. Further measurements were FDRs with CRC / colorectal polyps (adenomas) diagnosed before the age of 50 and occurrence of three or more relatives with colorectal, stomach, cervical, ovarian, urethel or renal pelvic cancer. RESULTS: Out of 6723 participants, 7.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.6% to 7.8%) reported at least one FDR with CRC and 1.2% (95% CI 0.9% to 1.5%) reported FDRs with CRC diagnosed before the age of 50. A further 2.6% (95% CI 2.3% to 3.0%) reported colorectal polyps in FDRs diagnosed before the age of 50 and 2.1% (95% CI 1.8% to 2.5%) reported three or more relatives with entities mentioned above. CONCLUSION: One in 14 patients reported at least one FDR with CRC. General practice should be considered when defining requirements of risk-adapted CRC screening.