The Online Health Information Needs of Family Physicians: Systematic Review of Qualitative and Quantitative Studies.

BACKGROUND: Digitalization and the increasing availability of online information have changed the way in which information is searched for and retrieved by the public and by health professionals. The technical developments in the last two decades have transformed the methods of information retrieval. Although systematic evidence exists on the general information needs of specialists, and in particular, family physicians (FPs), there have been no recent systematic reviews to specifically address the needs of FPs and any barriers that may exist to accessing online health information. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to provide an up-to-date perspective on the needs of FPs in searching, retrieving, and using online information. METHODS: This systematic review of qualitative and quantitative studies searched a multitude of databases spanning the years 2000 to 2020 (search date January 2020). Studies that analyzed the online information needs of FPs, any barriers to the accessibility of information, and their information-seeking behaviors were included. Two researchers independently scrutinized titles and abstracts, analyzing full-text papers for their eligibility, the studies therein, and the data obtained from them. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 4541 studies for initial title and abstract screening. Of the 144 studies that were found to be eligible for full-text screening, 41 were finally included. A total of 20 themes were developed and summarized into 5 main categories: individual needs of FPs before the search; access needs, including factors that would facilitate or hinder information retrieval; quality needs of the information to hand; utilization needs of the information available; and implication needs for everyday practice. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that searching, accessing, and using online information, as well as any pre-existing needs, barriers, or demands, should not be perceived as separate entities but rather be regarded as a sequential process. Apart from accessing information and evaluating its quality, FPs expressed concerns regarding the applicability of this information to their everyday practice and its subsequent relevance to patient care. Future online information resources should cater to the needs of the primary care setting and seek to address the way in which such resources may be adapted to these specific requirements.

The quality of COPD care in German general practice-A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a common health problem to be dealt with in primary care. Little is known about the quality of care provided for patients with COPD in Germany. Therefore, we wanted to assess the current quality of care delivered by a primary care network (PCN) for patients with COPD. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in collaboration with a primary care network (PCN). All patients of the PCN aged 40 years and older with a diagnosis of COPD were identified through electronic health records (EHR). A set of quality indicators (QIs) developed in accordance with current COPD-guidelines were appraised through numerical data retrieved from the EHR. RESULTS: In total, 2,568 patients with COPD were identified. Their mean age was 67 (SD±12) years, 49% were male. Thirty-five percent had a parallel diagnosis of asthma. There was no documentation of any spirometry for 54% of patients; 29% had a spirometry within the previous year. An influenza vaccination was documented for 37% within the preceding 12 months; 12% received a pneumococcal vaccination in the last 6 years. Smoking status was documented for 44% within the last year. CONCLUSION: The quality of care for patients with COPD in the PCN seemed suboptimal, despite the presence of a Disease Management Program (DMP). This finding is likely to apply widely to German general practice. Quality assessment through currently available EHR data was challenging due to non-standardized and insufficient documentation.

Well informed physician-patient communication in consultations on back pain - study protocol of the cluster randomized GAP trial.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is one of the most frequent causes of health-related work absence. In Germany, more than 70% of adults suffer from at least one back pain episode per annum. It has strong impact on health care costs and patients' quality of life. Patients increasingly seek health information on the internet. However, judging its trustworthiness is difficult. In addition, physicians who are being confronted with this type of information often experience it to complicate the physician-patient interaction. The GAP trial aims to develop, implement and evaluate an evidence-based, easy-to-understand and trustworthy internet information portal on lower back pain to be used by general practitioners and patients during and after the consultation. Effectiveness of GAP portal use compared to routine consultation on improving communication and informedness of both physicians and patients will be assessed. In addition, effects on health care costs and patients' days of sick leave will be evaluated. METHODS: We will conduct a prospective multi-centre, cluster-randomized parallel group trial including 1500 patients and 150 recruiting general practitioners. The intervention group will have access to the GAP portal. The portal will contain brief guides for patients and physicians on how to improve the consultation as well as information on epidemiology, aetiology, symptoms, benefits and harms of treatment options for acute, sub-acute and chronic lower back pain. The GAP portal will be designed to be user-friendly and present information on back pain tailored for either patients or physicians in form of brief fact sheets, educative videos, info-graphics, animations and glossaries. Physicians and patients will assess their informedness and the physician-patient communication in consultations at baseline and at two time points after the consultations under investigation. Days of sick leave and health care costs related to back pain will be compared between control and intervention group using routine data of company health insurance funds. DISCUSSION: The GAP-trial intends to improve the communication between physicians and their patients and the informedness of both groups. If proven beneficial, the evidence-based and user-friendly portal will be made accessible for all patients and health professionals in back pain care. Inclusion of further indications might be implemented and evaluated in the long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00014279 (registered 27th of April 2018).

[Impact of an elective course in evidence-based clinical decision-making on competencies and attitudes of medical students: A pilot study]. / Auswirkungen eines Wahlfachs zur evidenzbasierten klinischen Entscheidungsfindung auf die Kompetenzen und Einstellungen von Medizinstudierenden: Eine Pilotstudie.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EbM) as a teaching subject is increasingly taken into account in the Master Plan 2020. To date, neither theoretical requirements nor practical applications of EbM have been consistently implemented in the clinical curriculum. To fill this gap, a digital and tutor-based EbM course has been developed. The aim is to identify the student characteristics (statistical competence, Need for Cognition (NFC), work and experience patterns (AVEM), diagnostic uncertainty) of the first cohort in order to ensure successful course implementation and to prepare future doctors for their role as mediators of health literacy using EbM methods. METHODS: The long-term study started in the summer term 2019 with 10 medical students during their clinical training. The measurements were conducted before (t0) and after course attendance (t1). Socio-demographic variables were taken at t0, the Quick Risk Test, PRU questionnaire, the NFC scale and the AVEM were collected at t0 and t1. RESULTS: Half of the students started their doctoral thesis before attending the course. The first test results of the Quick Risk Test (t0) were between 50 % and 90 % and at t1 between 60 % and 100 %. The students showed high scores on the NFC scale (X¯=4.6, SD=0.52, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.1) and medium scores on the Perfectionism scale (X¯=3.8, SD=0.51, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.1), Resignation Tendency (X¯=3.8, SD=1.17, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.1) and on the scale Aggressive Problem Solving (X¯=3.9, SD=1.06, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.2). They achieved high levels of Anxiety Due to Diagnostic Uncertainty (X¯=4.8, SD=0.69, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.4) and on the scale Concern about Poor Outcomes (X¯=3.9, SD=1.54, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.6). The scale Restraint in Disclosing Uncertainty to Patients was more pronounced than the scale Restraint in Disclosing Errors to Physicians (X¯=3.5, SD=0.93, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=-0.3 compared to X¯=2.3, SD=1.20, Δ X¯ t0 - t1=0.1). DISCUSSION: Statistical competence improved with course attendance, with only one student being able to correctly answer all items at t1. NFC and AVEM were strongly expressed and were not very sensitive to change in the sample. The greatest changes were observed on the scales of concern about poor results and fear of diagnostic uncertainty, both of which decreased with course participation. CONCLUSION: In the long term, the development of a new measuring instrument to assess EbM competencies instead of the Quick Risk Test is conceivable. The longitudinal design will also enable us to make causal interpretations and to track changes in students' competence feelings, behaviour and attitudes.

How confident are medical students about making clinical decisions relying on the evidence? A cross-sectional questionnaire study.

Objective: Giving information and providing advice on diagnostic tests is one of the tasks physicians must carry out personally. To do so, they must evaluate the evidence and integrate their findings into everyday practice. Clinical decisions should be based on evidence. How well current medical education prepares for such evidence-based clinical decision-making is largely unclear. Therefore, it was examined how confident medical students are in clinical decision-making based on evidence using epidemiological data. It was examined whether the decision-making confidence increases the higher the semester. Further questions were whether scientifically active medical students show higher decision-making confidence and whether the representation of figures as pictograms rather than tables positively influences the decision-making confidence. Methods: An online survey of the medical students of the Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg was carried out. Respondents were presented with three clinical decision-making situations in random order for evaluation in the form of screening scenarios. In each case, the decision-making confidence also had to be specified. The scenarios contained only epidemiological data on existing screening tests. For each scenario, the numbers were presented as a table or a pictogram in a random fashion. In order to avoid false confidence resulting from preconceived opinions neither the illnesses nor the screening tests were mentioned by name. Results: Answers from 171 students were evaluated. Decision-making confidence in dealing with the numbers does not increase in higher semesters (rPearson =0.018, p=0.41). Scientific work is not associated with a higher decision-making confidence (t(169)=-1.26, p=0.11, d=-0.19). Presentation as a pictogram leads to a higher decision-making confidence compared to tables (Pictogram: M=2.33, SD=1.07, Table with numbers: M=2.64, SD=1.11, t(511)=3.21, p<0.01, d=0.28). Conclusions: Medical students from higher semesters show no higher decision-making confidence compared to medical students from lower semesters. Curricular events and scientific work, such as a doctoral thesis, do not seem to strengthen the required skills sufficiently. If evidence is presented in the form of pictograms, this seems to improve student confidence in decision-making.

[Evidence and practice: How do primary care physicians evaluate screening interventions? A questionnaire study]. / Zwischen Evidenz und Praxis: Wie bewerten Hausärzte Früherkennungsmaßnahmen? Eine Fragebogenstudie.

BACKGROUND: Patients receiving a screening intervention have to be informed about risks and benefits. On the part of the physician, it requires the understanding of statistical evidence and statistical literacy. OBJECTIVES: Do general practitioners (GPs) make different recommendations on screening interventions if they only rely on statistics compared to their decisions in everyday practice? Are the decisions relying on statistics and the decisions made in everyday practice consistent with official recommendations? Does the way of presenting the numbers (table versus pictogram) affect the decision? METHODS: Online survey among German GPs. The GPs were asked to make recommendations for three different screening scenarios which were based on statistical evidence of existing screening interventions. To avoid bias, statistics were not presented in relation to the actual diseases. The numbers were presented in either a table or a pictogram. Afterwards, the GPs were asked for their recommendations on the same screening interventions in everyday practice. RESULTS: Forty-three GPs were surveyed. Compared to everyday medical practice, participants were less likely to recommend a screening intervention when being confronted with the underlying statistical evidence (F (1, 3)=104.83, p=.002, ηpartial2=.97). Most of the decisions in everyday practice were consistent with official recommendations, while their decisions relying on statistics were more likely to deviate from them (everyday practice, M=1.79, SD=0.77; scenario, M=1.44, SD=0.80; t (42)=-2.29, p=.03). The way the numbers were presented did not affect the decision (t (127)=-1.83, p=.07). CONCLUSIONS: In everyday practice, GPs' screening recommendations do not seem to be based on statistical evidence. Presumably they would be more reluctant to recommend screening interventions if they knew the statistical evidence.

Interprofessional education in Erlangen: A needs analysis and the conceptual work of a student working group.

INTRODUCTION: Interprofessional education (IPE) is receiving growing significance both nationally and internationally. Despite this, organizational and curricular changes are posing challenges. The level of need for IPE and how changes can be made to curricula and infrastructure were investigated at the University of Erlangen in Germany. METHOD: The student working group for interprofessional teaching (AGIL) has turned its attention to these issues. This group is composed of students from medicine, dentistry, molecular medicine, medical technology and speech therapy. In June, 2015, a needs analysis was carried out among the students in the study programs represented in the working group to assess the actual and target situation concerning IPE (n=1,105). In the search for answers and to better measure any needs, contact was sought with instructors. RESULTS: The majority of students feel that they are insufficiently educated in terms of interprofessional skills. A large proportion of the students wish to see expansion of the IPE offerings. Students also expressed a desire for additional spaces and welcomed the idea of an interprofessional learning center. AGIL began establishing interprofessional electives in October 2015. A concept for an interprofessional learning center was developed. DISCUSSION: Based on the survey results, a need for improvements to curricula and infrastructure can be seen; however, the results are limited to the student point of view. AGIL would like to establish more interprofessional electives. These courses would then facilitate curricular implementation. Modern ideas about study environments could be applied to IPE, in particular to promote informal forms of learning. Contact with instructors was crucial for the project work and should be expanded. Realizing and financing the learning center in Erlangen are now the future goals of AGIL. The aim is to create a foundation for this purpose.