Medical students' perception of general practice: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: An increase in the demand for general practitioners is expected in many countries, but only a minority of medical students consider a career in general practice. More detailed and up-to-date knowledge about medical student's perception of general practice would be helpful for efforts to encourage medical students to consider a career in general practice. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional single center survey among Dutch medical students to evaluate their perception of general practice at three different stages in their study: Ba1: first-year bachelor students; Ba3: third-year bachelor students; Ma3: third-year master students. The impact of different factors on their attitudes and perceptions was quantified. A multivariate logistic regression was performed with 'interest in general practice' as the outcome variable. RESULTS: The median age for Ba1 was 18 (IQR: 18-19) and 71.5% were female, for Ba3 the median age was 20 (IQR: 20-21) and 70.6% were female and for Ma3 the median age was 25 years (IQR: 24-26) and 73.3% were female. On average, 31.2% of the respondents had a migration background. The mean response rate for this study was 77.1%. Of the participating Ba1 students (n = 340) only 22.4% considered working as a GP after medical school; for Ba3 students (n = 231) this percentage was 33.8%, and for Ma3 students (n = 210) it was significantly higher at 70.5%; in the final multivariate model this corresponded to an odds ratio (OR) of 4.3 (95%-CI:2.6-6.9) compared to Ba1 students. The strongest predictor in the final model was the opinion that general practice provides a pleasant working environment (OR 9.5; 95%-CI: 6.2-14.5). CONCLUSION: This study showed that multiple factors are significantly related to medical students' interest in general practice. Although students believed that general practice does not have a high status within the medical profession, they acknowledged the social importance and the pleasant working environment of general practice. Knowledge obtained in this study can be used when designing a medical curriculum or a general practice course.

Symptomatic treatment of pollen-related allergic rhinoconjunctivitis in children: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: About 12% of children are affected by allergic rhinoconjunctivitis (AR). Although the main symptomatic treatments are intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) (daily or on demand) and oral antihistamines, it remains unclear which treatment provides the best relief of symptoms. Therefore, this study examines whether daily use of INCS is superior to on-demand use or to oral antihistamines on demand. METHODS: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial in children (aged 6-18 years) with pollen-related AR. Patients received either INCS daily (fluticasone propionate), INCS on demand (fluticasone propionate) or oral antihistamine on demand (levocetirizine) for 3 months during the grass pollen season. A daily online symptom diary on both nose and eye symptoms was completed. The primary outcome was the percentage of symptom-free days. RESULTS: A total of 150 children were randomized. The percentage symptom-free days was in favour of INCS on demand (30%) compared with INCS daily (22%), that is 8% difference (95% CI -5 to +21%; not significant). The antihistamine on-demand group had 15% symptom-free days, that is 7% difference compared to INCS daily (95% CI -6 to +19%;, not significant). Patients in the INCS on-demand group used on average 61% less fluticasone than patients in the INCS daily group during the study period (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This trial with three parallel treatment groups shows that INCS daily was not superior to INCS on demand or to antihistamine on demand regarding the number of symptom-free days. An on-demand INCS strategy has the advantage of a lower overall corticosteroid exposure and less costs.

Atopic dermatitis, asthma and allergic rhinitis in general practice and the open population: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether significant differences exist between the self-reported prevalence of atopic disorders in the open population compared with physician diagnosed prevalence of atopic disorders in general practice. METHODS: Medline (OvidSP), PubMed Publisher, EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were systematically reviewed for articles providing data on the prevalence of asthma, allergic rhinitis and eczema in a GP setting. Studies were only included when they had a cross-sectional or cohort design and included more than 100 children (aged 0-18 years) in a general practice setting. All ISAAC studies (i.e. the open population) that geographically matched a study selected from the first search, were also included. A quality assessment was conducted. The primary outcome measures were prevalence of eczema, asthma and allergic rhinitis in children aged 0-18 years. RESULTS: The overall quality of the included studies was good. The annual and lifetime prevalences of the atopic disorders varied greatly in both general practice and the open population. On average, the prevalence of atopic disorders was higher in the open population. CONCLUSION: There are significant differences between the self-reported prevalence of atopic disorders in the open population compared with physician diagnosed prevalence of atopic disorders in general practice. Data obtained in the open population cannot simply be extrapolated to the general practice setting. This should be taken into account when considering a research topic or requirements for policy development. GPs should be aware of the possible misclassification of allergic disorders in their practice. Key Points Epidemiological data on atopic disorders in children can be obtained from various sources, each having its own advantages and limitations. On average, the prevalence of atopic disorders is higher in the open population. GPs should take into account the possible misclassification of atopic disorders in their practice population. Policymakers should be aware that data obtained in the open population cannot simply be extrapolated to the general practice setting.