GPs' prescription patterns, experience, and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis-a nationwide survey at the early stage of the Danish test scheme.

BACKGROUND: On 1 January 2018 a four-year test scheme concerning use of medicinal cannabis (MC) was enacted. It has recently been extended for four more years by the Danish Parliament permitting all Danish physicians to prescribe MC to their patients. Previous studies have shown that general practitioners (GPs) have varying prescription experience, little knowledge, and mixed attitudes about MC. However, the present evidence is still limited, and no studies exist about Danish GPs' prescription experience, knowledge, and attitudes towards MC. Therefore, our aim was to examine Danish GPs' prescription experience, knowledge, and attitudes towards MC. METHODS: A national online survey-based study addressing Danish GPs was performed from September 2018 to July 2019. We performed separate multivariable logistic regression analyses including GPs' prescription experience, knowledge, and attitudes towards MC as outcome variables. RESULTS: A total of 427 (38.4%) of 1112 GPs completed the questionnaire. Of these, 37 (8.7%) had experience in prescribing MC. The majority had little or no knowledge about MC (80.6%) as well as a negative view on prescription of MC (71.4%) to patients. Factors associated with prescribing MC to patients were: Single-handed practices (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.1;1.8) and perception of having quite some knowledge about MC (OR = 4.8, 95% CI 2.2;10.4). Factors associated with having quite some knowledge about MC were: having a positive attitude towards prescribing MC (OR = 5.2, 95% CI 1.9;14.0), being male (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.4;1.8), and being at least 60 years of age (OR = 2.8, 95% CI 1.3;6.0). Factors associated with having a positive attitude towards prescribing MC were: having quite some knowledge about MC (OR = 5.2, 95% CI 2.2;12.5) and GPs being male (OR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.1;1.9). CONCLUSION: In this first study on prescription experience, knowledge, and attitudes about MC among Danish GPs, conducted one year after the Danish test scheme was enacted, we find a very low proportion of prescribers, little knowledge, and an overall negative attitude towards MC. Among the prescribing GPs, four in ten have little to no knowledge and a negative attitude towards MC. We stress that prescribing patterns, knowledge, and attitudes may change throughout the remaining time of the test scheme.

A three-year follow-up on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for patients with mild dementia and their caregivers: the multicentre, rater-blinded, randomised Danish Alzheimer Intervention Study (DAISY).

OBJECTIVES: To examine the long-term efficacy at the 36-month follow-up of an early psychosocial counselling and support programme lasting 8-12 months for community-dwelling patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, controlled, rater-blinded trial. SETTING: Primary care and memory clinics in five Danish districts. PARTICIPANTS: 330 home-dwelling patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and their primary caregivers (dyads). INTERVENTIONS: Dyads were randomised to receive intervention during the first year after diagnosis. Both intervention and control groups had follow-up visits at 3, 6, 12 and 36 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes for the patients assessed at 36-month follow-up were changes from baseline in global cognitive function (Mini-Mental State Examination), depressive symptoms (Cornell Depression Scale) and proxy-rated EuroQoL quality of life on visual analogue scale. The primary outcomes for the caregivers were changes from baseline in depressive symptoms (Geriatric Depression Scale) and self-rated EuroQoL quality of life on a visual analogue scale. The secondary outcome measures for the patient were proxy-rated Quality of Life Scale for Alzheimer's disease (QoL-AD), Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Questionnaire, Alzheimer's disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Scale, all-cause mortality and nursing home placement. RESULTS: At a 36-month follow-up, 2 years after the completion of the Danish Alzheimer Intervention Study (DAISY), the unadjusted positive effects previously detected at the 12-month follow-up in one patient primary outcome (Cornell depression score) and one patient secondary outcome (proxy-rated QoL-AD) disappeared (Cornell depression score, p=0.93; proxy-rated QoL-AD, p=0.81). No long-term effect of DAISY intervention on any other primary and secondary outcomes was found at the 36-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with very mild Alzheimer's disease and their caregivers, an intensive, multi-component, semitailored psychosocial intervention programme with counselling, education and support during the first year after diagnosis did not show any positive long-term effect on primary and secondary outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the Clinical Trial Database (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN74848736).

Efficacy of psychosocial intervention in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease: the multicentre, rater blinded, randomised Danish Alzheimer Intervention Study (DAISY).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy at 12 months of an early psychosocial counselling and support programme for outpatients with mild Alzheimer's disease and their primary care givers. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, controlled, rater blinded trial. SETTING: Primary care and memory clinics in five Danish districts. PARTICIPANTS: 330 outpatients with mild Alzheimer's disease and their 330 primary care givers. INTERVENTIONS: Participating dyads (patient and primary care giver) were randomised to control support during follow-up or to control support plus DAISY intervention (multifaceted and semi-tailored counselling, education, and support). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes at 12 months for patients were change from baseline in mini mental state examination (MMSE) score, Cornell depression scale score, and proxy rated European quality of life visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) score. For care givers, outcomes were change from baseline in geriatric depression scale (GDS 30 items) score and EQ-VAS score. RESULTS: Because of multiple testing, statistical significance was set at an adjusted P limit of <0.0005. At 12 months there were no significant differences between the two allocation groups in changes from baseline in the primary and secondary outcomes. However, although non-significant with the adjusted P limit, a small difference was observed for one of the primary patient outcomes (Cornell depression scale score) in patients in favour of the DAISY intervention group before and after adjusting for attrition (P = 0.0146 and P = 0.0103 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The multifaceted, semi-tailored intervention with counselling, education, and support for patients with mild Alzheimer's disease and their care givers did not have any significant effect beyond that with well structured follow-up support at 12 months after adjustment for multiple comparisons. The small positive effect found in the unadjusted primary outcome addressing depressive symptoms in patients may call for further research focusing on patients with Alzheimer's disease and comorbid depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN74848736.

The Danish Alzheimer intervention study: rationale, study design and baseline characteristics of the cohort.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of appropriately designed trials investigating the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for patients with mild dementia and their family caregivers. This paper reports the rationale and design of the Danish Alzheimer Disease Intervention Study and baseline characteristics of the cohort. METHODS: The study was a 1-year multicentre randomized controlled rater-blinded trial with randomization to follow-up and a multifaceted semitailored intervention programme or to follow-up only (with extension of follow-up to 3 years). The intervention included a counselling programme, teaching courses, written information and logbooks. The outcomes included clinical efficacy parameters, patient satisfaction and health economic consequences. RESULTS: A total of 330 patients and their 330 caregivers were included during a period of 18 months. The majority (65.2 %) of the caregivers were spouses. At inclusion the mean age of the patients and caregivers was 76.2 and 66.0 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: The study will explore the added value of a multifaceted intervention programme and contribute to the design of future interventions for patients with mild dementia and their caregivers.

Management of dementia in primary health care: the experiences of collaboration between the GP and the district nurse.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the context and experiences of collaboration between the GP and the district nurse (DN) in diagnosing dementia, in order to identify possible procedures to improve care. METHODS: Two group interviews were conducted with four DNs and five GPs, respectively, working in the municipality of Copenhagen. RESULTS: The group interviews revealed that the suboptimized collaboration could be due to different inter-professional diagnostic strategies and a lack of understanding of the importance of early, shared, decision making. This could create conflicts between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates a possibility for improved collaboration between the two professional groups in diagnosing dementia. Possible approaches for improved care should focus on an inter-professional understanding of the importance of early, shared, decision making, emphasizing early identification and care of diagnosed demented patients. Establishing a shared collaboration model including out-patient memory clinics, GPs and DNs could be a first step. This model should also take into account an evaluation of possible consequences for the diagnosed demented patients in terms of treatment and care and consider the indication for referrals to a comprehensive diagnostic evaluation. We are at present planning a study to address these aspects.

Diagnostic evaluation of dementia in general practice in Denmark. A national survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine GPs' self-reported basic diagnostic evaluation of dementia according to the recommendations in multidisciplinary consensus guidelines and to analyse explanatory factors for GP performance. DESIGN: Postal questionnaire study, spring 1998. SETTING: General practice in Denmark. SUBJECTS: All 3379 GPs in Denmark. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 75.1%. According to our Diagnostic Evaluation Index, 47.2% of the GPs were classified as conducting a good basic diagnostic evaluation of dementia, and tended to have the following characteristics: they conducted regular follow-up consultations with demented patients (odds ratio (OR) 2.4), they were inclined to state that all patients with possible dementia should undergo diagnostic evaluation (OR 2.0), they considered that the GP should play the major role in diagnostic evaluation (OR 1.7) and they believed their methods were adequate identify dementia (OR 1.7). Gender, attitude to development of clinical guidelines and being able to refer patients to specialists were not influential. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the previously reported reluctant attitude of GPs is now more positive.

[Referral from general practice to diagnostic evaluation of dementia]. / Henvisninger til demensudredning fra almen praksis.

The study objective was to describe the GP's referrals of patients to diagnostic evaluation of dementia and the GP's perception of the organization of this process++. The study is based on postal questionnaire mailed to all GPs in Denmark, spring 1998. Seventy-five percent of 3379 GPs answered the questionnaire. Seventy-one percent (1799) of the GPs had referred a patient to diagnostic evaluation of dementia within the last 12 months. Thirty-nine percent had referred to a geriatric psychiatric service, 36% to a neurologic service, 18% to a psychiatric service, 11% to a geriatric service, and 16% had referred to other services. Fifteen percent of the GPs had referred to two or more of the services. The study concludes that there is considerable regional variation as to where the GPs refer patients for diagnostic evaluation of dementia as well as to the GPs perception of the possibilities of referrals in Denmark. The implications are discussed.