Reaching the Elderly: Understanding of health and preventive experiences for a tailored approach - Results of a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Often preventive measures are not accessed by the people who were intended to be reached. Programs for older adults may target men and women, older adults, advanced old age groups and/or chronically ill patients with specific indications. The defined target groups rarely participate in the conception of programs or in the design of information materials, although this would increase accessibility and participation. In the German "Reaching the Elderly" study (2008-2011), an approach to motivating older adults to participate in a preventive home visit (PHV) program was modified with the participatory involvement of the target groups. The study examines how older men and women would prefer to be addressed for health and prevention programs. METHODS: Four focus groups (N = 42 participants) and 12 personal interviews were conducted (women and men in 2 age groups: 65-75 years and ≥ 76 years). Participants from two districts of a major German city were selected from a stratified random sample (N = 200) based on routine data from a local health insurance fund. The study focused on the participants' knowledge about health and disease prevention and how they preferred to be approached and addressed. Videos of the focus groups were recorded and analysed using mind mapping techniques. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and subjected to qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: A gender-specific approach profile was observed. Men were more likely to favor competitive and exercise-oriented activities, and they associated healthy aging with mobility and physical activity. Women, on the other hand, displayed a broader understanding of healthy aging, which included physical activity as only one aspect as well as a healthy diet, relaxation/wellness, memory training and independent living; they preferred holistic and socially oriented services that were not performance-oriented. The "older seniors" (76+) were ambivalent towards certain wordings referring to aging. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that gender-specific needs must be considered in order to motivate older adults to participate in preventive services. Age-specific characteristics seem to be less relevant. It is more important to pay attention to factors that vary according to the individual state of health and life situation of the potential participants.

Understanding and reducing the prescription of hypnotics and sedatives at the interface of hospital care and general practice: a protocol for a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Hypnotics and sedatives, especially benzodiazepines and Z-drugs, are frequently prescribed for longer periods than recommended-in spite of potential risks for patients. Any intervention to improve this situation has to take into account the interplay between different actors, interests and needs. The ultimate goal of this study is to develop-together with the professionals involved-ideas for reducing the use of hypnotics and sedatives and then to implement and evaluate adequate interventions in the hospital and at the primary and secondary care interface. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will take place in a regional hospital in northern Germany and in some general practices in this region. We will collect data from doctors, nurses, patients and a major social health insurer to define the problem from multiple perspectives. These data will be explored and discussed with relevant stakeholders to develop interventions. The interventions will be implemented and, in a final step, evaluated. Both quantitative and qualitative data, including surveys, interviews, chart reviews and secondary analysis of social health insurance data, will be collected to obtain a full understanding of the frequency and the reasons for using hypnotics and sedatives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been granted from the ethics review committee of the University Medical Center Göttingen, Germany. Results will be disseminated to researchers, clinicians and policy makers in peer-reviewed journal articles and conference publications. One or more dissemination events will be held locally during continuous professional development events for local professionals, including (but not confined to) the study participants.

Applying for, reviewing and funding public health research in Germany and beyond.

Public health research is complex, involves various disciplines, epistemological perspectives and methods, and is rarely conducted in a controlled setting. Often, the added value of a research project lies in its inter- or trans-disciplinary interaction, reflecting the complexity of the research questions at hand. This creates specific challenges when writing and reviewing public health research grant applications. Therefore, the German Research Foundation (DFG), the largest independent research funding organization in Germany, organized a round table to discuss the process of writing, reviewing and funding public health research. The aim was to analyse the challenges of writing, reviewing and granting scientific public health projects and to improve the situation by offering guidance to applicants, reviewers and funding organizations. The DFG round table discussion brought together national and international public health researchers and representatives of funding organizations. Based on their presentations and discussions, a core group of the participants (the authors) wrote a first draft on the challenges of writing and reviewing public health research proposals and on possible solutions. Comments were discussed in the group of authors until consensus was reached. Public health research demands an epistemological openness and the integration of a broad range of specific skills and expertise. Applicants need to explicitly refer to theories as well as to methodological and ethical standards and elaborate on why certain combinations of theories and methods are required. Simultaneously, they must acknowledge and meet the practical and ethical challenges of conducting research in complex real life settings. Reviewers need to make the rationale for their judgments transparent, refer to the corresponding standards and be explicit about any limitations in their expertise towards the review boards. Grant review boards, funding organizations and research ethics committees need to be aware of the specific conditions of public health research, provide adequate guidance to applicants and reviewers, and ensure that processes and the expertise involved adequately reflect the topic under review.

A geriatric assessment in general practice: prevalence, location, impact and doctor-patient perceptions of pain.

BACKGROUND: To investigate what a geriatric assessment in general practice adds towards previous findings of prevalence, location, impact and the dyadic doctor-patient perception of pain in this age group. METHODS: Cross-sectional study. Consecutive patients aged 70 and over underwent a comprehensive geriatric assessment in general practice that included a basic pain assessment (severity, sites and impact). Patients with pain and their doctors then independently rated its importance. Pain was correlated with further findings from the assessment, such as overall health, physical impairments, everyday function, falls, mood, health related lifestyle, social circumstances, using bivariate and multivariate statistics. Patient-doctor agreement on the importance of pain was calculated using kappa statistics. RESULTS: 219 out of 297 patients (73.7 %) reported pain at any location. Pain was generally located at multiple sites. It was most often present at the knee (33.9%), the lumbar spine (33.5%) as well as the hip (13.8%) and correlated with specific impairments such as restrictions of daily living (knee) or sleep problems (spine). Patients with pain and their physicians poorly agreed on the importance of the pain problem. CONCLUSIONS: A basic pain assessment can identify older patients with pain in general practice. It has resulted in a high prevalence exceeding that determined by encounters in consultations. It has been shown that a geriatric assessment provides an opportunity to address pain in a way that is adapted to older patients' needs - addressing all sites, its specific impact on life, and the patients' perceived importance of pain. Since there is little doctor-patient agreement, this seems a valuable strategy to optimize concrete treatment decisions and patient centered care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered in the German Clinical Trial Register ( DRKS00000792 ).

"It's MAGIC"--development of a manageable geriatric assessment for general practice use.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric assessments are established tools in institutional care since they enable standardized detection of relevant age-related disorders. Geriatric assessments could also be helpful in general practice. However, they are infrequently used in this setting, mainly due to their lengthy administration. The aim of the study was the development of a "manageable geriatric assessment--MAGIC", specially tailored to the requirements of daily primary care. METHODS: MAGIC was developed based on the comprehensive Standardized Assessment for Elderly People in Primary Care (STEP), using four different methodological approaches: We relied on A) the results of the PRISCUS study by assessing the prevalence of health problems uncovered by STEP, the importance of the respective problems rated by patients and general practitioners, as well as the treatment procedures initiated subsequently to the assessment. Moreover, we included findings of B) a literature analysis C) a review of the STEP assessment by experienced general practitioners and D) focus groups with general practitioners. RESULTS: The newly created MAGIC assessment consists of 9 items and covers typical geriatric health problems and syndromes: function, falls, incontinence, cognitive impairment, impaired ears and eyes, vaccine coverage, emotional instability and isolation. CONCLUSIONS: MAGIC promises to be a helpful screening instrument in primary care consultations involving elderly multimorbid patients. Applicable within a minimum of time it still covers health problems highly relevant with regard to a potential loss of autonomy. Feasibility will be tested in the context of a large, still ongoing randomized controlled trial on "reduction of potentially inadequate medication in elderly patients" (RIME study; DRKS-ID: DRKS00003610) in general practice.

The inter-contact interval: a new measure to define frequent attenders in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Frequent attenders receive much attention in primary care research. Defining frequent attendance is crucial for an adequate view on this group of demanding patients. We aimed to develop a purely contact-based definition of "frequent attendance" and to apply it to real patients. METHODS: From electronic records of 123 general practices in Germany, patients' inter-contact intervals (ICI) between two consecutive doctor-patient-contacts were calculated in this retrospective observational study. ICI less than 7 days were labelled "frequent attendance", patients with 60% or more of such intervals "frequent attenders (new view)". In contrast, patients having at least 24 contacts per calendar year were considered "frequent attenders (traditional view)". Both groups were analysed in their diseases and demands, using multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 177,057 patients with at least 3 ICI in 1996 until 2006 yielded 4,408,033 ICI. One third were "short" ICI (less than 7 days), resulting in 19,759 (11.2%) frequent attenders (new). In contrast, 22,921 (12.9%) patients were frequent attenders (traditional). Compared to non-frequent attenders, frequent attenders (new) were more likely to have pneumonia (OR 1.66), stroke (OR 1.49), dementia (OR 1.46), or severe substance abuse (OR 1.44), also to need home visits or emergency attention. Frequent attenders (traditional) were more likely to have dementia (OR 2.76) or stroke (OR 2.06), and by far to need home visits (OR 5.43; all p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A new measure, the interval in days of two consecutive face-to-face contacts (ICI), widens our perspective on frequent attenders in general practice. In many cases, their consultation behaviour and need for medical services seem to follow "disease logic".

End of life care for frail older patients in family practice (ELFOP)--protocol of a longitudinal qualitative study on needs, appropriateness and utilisation of services.

BACKGROUND: Frail elderly people represent a major patient group in family practice. Little is known about the patients' needs, and how their needs evolve over time with increasing frailty towards the end of life. This study will address end-of-life care needs, service utilisation, and experiences of frail elderly patients and their informal caregivers, with regard to family practice. This paper aims to introduce the research protocol. METHODS/DESIGN: The study uses a multiple perspective approach qualitative design. The first study part consists of serial six-monthly in-depth interviews with 30 community-dwelling elderly patients (≥70 years) with moderate to severe frailty and their key informal caregivers, over a period of 18 months. Additionally, semi-structured interviews with the patients' family physician will be conducted. The serial interviews will be analysed with grounded theory and narrative approaches. Special attention will be paid to the comparison of distinct views of the patients', informal caregivers', and family physicians' as well as on chronological aspects. In the second study part, five focus groups with experts in family medicine, geriatrics, palliative medicine, and nursing will be conducted. Finally, the implications for family practice and health care policy will be discussed in an expert workshop. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective, longitudinal qualitative study on the needs of elderly patients with advanced frailty towards the end of life in German family practice, which integrates the perspectives of patients, informal caregivers, family physicians and other health professionals. The study will contribute to the understanding of the clinical, psychosocial and information needs of patients and their caregivers, and of respective changes of experiences and needs along the illness/frailty trajectory including the last phase of life. It will provide an empirical basis for improving patient-centred care for this increasingly relevant target group.

Complex health care decisions with older patients in general practice: patient-centeredness and prioritization in consultations following a geriatric assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine to what extent general practitioners in consultations after a geriatric assessment set shared health priorities with older patients experiencing multimorbidity and to what extent this was facilitated through patient-centered behavior. METHODS: Observation of consultations embedded in a cluster randomized controlled trial,(1) in which 317 patients from 41 general practices received the STEP assessment followed by a care planning consultation with their GPs. GPs in the intervention group used a structured procedure for setting health (care) priorities in contrast to control GPs. A sample of 43 consultations (24 intervention; 19 control) were recorded, transcribed and analyzed with regard to priority setting and patient-centeredness. RESULTS: Patient-centeredness was only moderately apparent in consultations dealing with complex care plans for older patients with multimorbidity. The shared determination of health priorities seemed unusual for both doctors and patients and was rarely practiced, albeit more frequently in intervention consultations. CONCLUSION: Setting health care priorities with patients experiencing multimorbidity is ethically desirable and medically appropriate. Yet a short structured guide for doctors cannot easily achieve this. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: More research is needed in regard to handling complex health needs of older patients. It requires a professional approach and training in patient-centered holistic care planning.

Impact of a priority-setting consultation on doctor-patient agreement after a geriatric assessment: cluster randomised controlled trial in German general practices.

BACKGROUND: General Practitioners (GPs) often have to simultaneously tackle multiple health problems of older patients. A patient-centred process that engages the patient in setting health priorities for treatment is needed. We investigated whether a structured priority-setting consultation reconciles the often-differing doctor-patient views on the importance of problems. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial with 40 GPs and their 317 consecutively recruited older patients. PROCEDURE: Following a geriatric assessment, patients and doctors independently rated the importance of each uncovered problem. GPs then selected priorities with their patients in a consultation. Trained intervention GPs held a structured consultation and utilised the list of uncovered patient problems with their importance ratings to agree priorities. Untrained control GPs only used the patient's problem list without importance ratings. MAIN OUTCOME: Doctor-patient agreement on independent importance ratings two weeks after the priority-setting consultation. ANALYSIS: Weighted kappa (κw) and multilevel logistic regression model. RESULTS: Intervention GPs and their patients determined mutual priorities for 20% of individual problems. In this process, GPs often succeeded in convincing their patients of the importance of vaccinations, lifestyle and cognitive issues. Likewise, patients convinced their GPs to prioritise their social and functional problems. Further treatment plans ensued in 84% of these priority areas. The regression model adjusting for clusters and baseline characteristics did not demonstrate significant differences in doctor-patient agreement on problems between groups a two weeks later. CONCLUSION: Differing views on the importance of health problems between GPs and older patients were not sustainably reconciled. The special consultation facilitated identification of priority problems for treatment despite differences in perceived importance of problems between patients and GPs. German clinical trials register drks 00000792.

General practice-based clinical trials in Germany - a problem analysis.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, clinical trials and comparative effectiveness studies in primary care are still very rare, while their usefulness has been recognised in many other countries. A network of researchers from German academic general practice has explored the reasons for this discrepancy. METHODS: Based on a comprehensive literature review and expert group discussions, problem analyses as well as structural and procedural prerequisites for a better implementation of clinical trials in German primary care are presented. RESULTS: In Germany, basic biomedical science and technology is more reputed than clinical or health services research. Clinical trials are funded by industry or a single national programme, which is highly competitive, specialist-dominated, exclusive of pilot studies, and usually favours innovation rather than comparative effectiveness studies. Academic general practice is still not fully implemented, and existing departments are small. Most general practitioners (GPs) work in a market-based, competitive setting of small private practices, with a high case load. They have no protected time or funding for research, and mostly no research training or experience. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training is compulsory for participation in clinical trials. The group defined three work packages to be addressed regarding clinical trials in German general practice: (1) problem analysis, and definition of (2) structural prerequisites and (3) procedural prerequisites. Structural prerequisites comprise specific support facilities for general practice-based research networks that could provide practices with a point of contact. Procedural prerequisites consist, for example, of a summary of specific relevant key measures, for example on a web platform. The platform should contain standard operating procedures (SOPs), templates, checklists and other supporting materials for researchers. CONCLUSION: All in all, our problem analyses revealed that a substantial number of barriers contribute to the low implementation of clinical research in German general practice. Some issues are deeply rooted in Germany's market-based healthcare and academic systems and traditions. However, new developments may facilitate change: recent developments in the German research landscape are encouraging.

What is important, what needs treating? How GPs perceive older patients' multiple health problems: a mixed method research study.

BACKGROUND: GPs increasingly deal with multiple health problems of their older patients. They have to apply a hierarchical management approach that considers priorities to balance competing needs for treatment. Yet, the practice of setting individual priorities in older patients is largely unexplored. This paper analyses the GPs' perceptions on important and unimportant health problems and how these affect their treatment. METHODS: GPs appraised the importance of health problems for a purposive sample of their older patients in semi-structured interviews. Prior to the interviews, the GPs had received a list of their patients' health problems resulting from a geriatric assessment and were asked to rate the importance of each identified problem. In the interviews the GPs subsequently explained why they considered certain health problems important or not and how this affected treatment. Data was analysed using qualitative content analysis and quantitative methods. RESULTS: The problems GPs perceive as important are those that are medical and require active treatment or monitoring, or that induce empathy or awareness but cannot be assisted further. Unimportant problems are those that are well managed problems and need no further attention as well as age-related conditions or functional disabilities that provoke fatalism, or those considered outside the GPs' responsibility. Statements of professional actions are closely linked to explanations of important problems and relate to physical problems rather than functional and social patient issues. CONCLUSIONS: GPs tend to prioritise treatable clinical conditions. Treatment approaches are, however, vague or missing for complex chronic illnesses and disabilities. Here, patient empowerment strategies are of value and need to be developed and implemented. The professional concepts of ageing and disability should not impede but rather foster treatment and care. To this end, GPs need to be able to delegate care to a functioning primary care team. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Trial Register (DRKS): 00000792.

Home visits - central to primary care, tradition or an obligation? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Home visits are claimed to be a central element of primary care. However, the frequency with which home visits are made is declining both internationally and in Germany despite the increase in the number of chronically ill elderly patients. Given this, the question arises as to how to ensure sufficient primary health care for this vulnerable patient group. The aim of this study was to explore German general practitioners' (GPs) attitudes with regard to the feasibility, burden and outlook of continued home visits in German primary care. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were carried out with 24 GPs from the city of Hannover, Germany, and its rural surroundings. Data was analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The GPs indicated that they frequently conduct home visits, but not all of them were convinced of their benefit. Most were not really motivated to undertake home visits but some felt obliged to. The basic conditions covering home visits were described as unsatisfactory, in particular with respect to reimbursement and time constraints. House calls for vulnerable, elderly people remained undisputed, whereas visits of a social nature were mostly deleted. Urgent house calls were increasingly delegated to the emergency services. Visits to nursing homes were portrayed as being emotionally distressing. GPs considered good cooperation with nursing staff the key factor to ensure a successful nursing home visit. The GPs wanted to ease their work load while still ensuring quality home care but were unable to suggest how this might be achieved. Better financial compensation was proposed most often. The involvement of specially trained nurses was considered possible, but viewed with resentment. CONCLUSIONS: Home visits are still an integral aspect of primary care in Germany and impose a considerable workload on many practices. Though the existing situation was generally perceived as unsatisfactory, German GPs could not envisage alternatives if asked to consider whether the current arrangements were sustainable in the future. To guarantee an unaltered quality of primary home care, German GPs and health care policy makers should actively initiate a debate on the need for and nature of home visits in the future.

Series: The research agenda for general practice/family medicine and primary health care in Europe. Part 6: reaction on commentaries - how to continue with the Research Agenda?

The Research Agenda should be used as a key reference point to which new research should relate its usefulness and added value. Primary care evolves towards more interdisciplinary care, and research should focus more on the core competency of person-centred team care. There is an urgent need to develop clear definitions and appropriate research instruments for this domain. It will be a particular challenge to study comprehensive approaches in primary-care patients with multi-morbidity. The Research Agenda and the commentaries on it show future directions for primary care research. There are challenges related to a changing society, the shared responsibility and guidance of research by professionals and citizens (patients), and the need to fully integrate research as part of primary healthcare provision. There will be a need for a prioritization of spearheads to guide primary care research for the next decade: translational research, research on equity and health differences, on chronic disease and health systems research. This can not be realized without the development and maintenance of a solid research infrastructure: easily maintained and accessed observational databases, helpful information technology, strategies and techniques for patient involvement, advanced research training possibilities, and the development and validation of appropriate research instruments and outcome measures to capture the different challenges. Worldwide, primary care not only is a priority for health care policy, but it needs to become a research priority as well.

Disclosure of new health problems and intervention planning using a geriatric assessment in a primary care setting.

AIM: To determine the prevalence of health problems uncovered by a Standardized Assessment for Elderly Patients in a Primary Care Setting (STEP), to explore how often STEP uncovered conditions new to general practitioners (GP) and ascertain how often STEP results led GPs to plan further interventions. METHODS: This descriptive, interim analysis was based on the data of 189 elderly patients (median age, 78 years; interquartile range [IQ], 74-81) and their 20 GPs collected in Hannover region, Germany, between June 2008 and April 2009. Study nurses in the practice setting applied the 44-item STEP instrument, based mainly on self-reporting, as well as a standardized patient interview. Subsequently, GPs indicated whether the problems were new to them, and whether they planned further action or health interventions on the basis of the problems identified by STEP. RESULTS: A median of 11 health problems (IQ, 8-14) were uncovered per patient, of which a median of 2 (IQ, 1-4) were new to the GP and interventions were planned for a median of 2 problems (IQ, 0-4). Many of the identified health problems are typical of old age. The following health problems uncovered by STEP were often new to the GPs (percentages differ to numbers due to missing GP ratings): cognitive impairment (33 of 64 affected by this problem, 73%), missing or unknown immunization status (84 of 160, 55%), and recent chest pain (19 of 37, 53%). Alcohol misuse was new in all 4 affected patients (100%) and recent falls were new in 5 of 7 patients (83%). Interventions for affected patients were frequently planned for problems of immunization (for 83 patients of 160 reporting the problem, 57%), current anxiety (4 of 9, 50%), and chest pain (14 of 37, 44%). Moreover, further management was frequently planned for depression (10 of 29, 39%) and cognitive impairment (16 of 64, 38%). CONCLUSION: Using a geriatric assessment in primary care discloses relevant heath problems and treatment needs that GPs may otherwise overlook.

Series: The research agenda for general practice/family medicine and primary health care in Europe. Part 5: Needs and implications for future research and policy.

The recently published 'Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Health Care in Europe' summarizes the evidence relating to the core competencies and characteristics of the Wonca Europe definition of GP/FM, and highlights related needs and implications for future research and policy. The European Journal of General Practice publishes a series of articles based on this document. In a first article, background, objectives, and methodology were discussed. In three subsequent, articles the results for the six core competencies of the European Definition of GP/FM were presented. This article formulates the common aims for further research and appropriate research methodologies, based on the missing evidence and research gaps identified form the comprehensive literature review. In addition, implications of this research agenda for general practitioners/family doctors, researchers, research organizations, patients and policy makers are presented. The concept of six core competencies should be abandoned in favour of a model with four dimensions, including clinical, person related, community oriented and management aspects. Future research and policy should consider more the involvement and rights of patients; more attention should be given to how new treatments or technologies are effectively translated into routine patient care, in particular primary care. There is a need for a European ethics board. The promotion of GP/FM research demands a good infrastructure in each country, including access to literature and databases, appropriate funding and training possibilities.

Views of German general practitioners on the clinical indicators of the British Quality and Outcomes Framework: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) has had a major impact on chronic care provision in British general practice. Various countries are looking at whether a similar initiative could be used in their primary care systems. An extensive quality indicator system like the QOF does not exist in German general practice. AIM: To describe and explore the views of German general practitioners (GPs) on the clinical indicators of the QOF. METHODS: Qualitative study based on focus group discussions and a framework approach for data analysis. Fifty-four German GPs were involved in seven focus groups in German primary care practices. RESULTS: German GPs expressed mixed views regarding the validity of the QOF clinical indicators to measure the quality of primary care. Most thought that these indicators covered areas that were relevant for German general practice and which were only partially covered by German quality initiatives. Participants had mixed opinions regarding linking pay and performance. Many thought that in deprived areas it would be difficult to achieve targets. Exception reporting would make achieving these targets easier, however, some believed it could lead to manipulation of figures. Many GPs saw QOF clinical indicators as a helpful structure, yet feared that introducing something similar would increase the administrative workload and be a threat to patient-centred care. Many participants were anxious that a QOF-like system could be influenced by sickness funds or the pharmaceutical industry. A few feared data protection problems if such a system were to be implemented. Several GPs expressed concerns on who would set and control such quality initiatives, feared for their autonomy and expected that in the future similar systems would be imposed upon them. CONCLUSIONS: Participating German GPs had various concerns regarding the QOF clinical indicators and the idea of implementing a system like the QOF in German primary care. These concerns were mainly related to the validity of the indicators, the link between pay and performance, structured care versus patient centredness and the fear of external influences.

The Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Health Care in Europe. Part 1. Background and methodology.

At the WONCA Europe conference 2009 the recently published 'Research Agenda for General Practice/Family Medicine and Primary Health Care in Europe' was presented. The Research Agenda is a background paper and reference manual for GPs/ family doctors, researchers and policy makers, providing advocacy of general practice/family medicine GP/FM in Europe. The Research Agenda summarizes the evidence relating to the core competencies and characteristics of the WONCA Europe definition of GP/FM, and its meaning for researchers and policy makers. Evidence gaps and research needs are pointed out to provide a basis for planning research for which there is a need and for action that may influence health and research policy, i.e. applying/lobbying for research funds. WONCA Europe and its associated networks and special interest groups could consider the agenda's research priorities when planning future conferences, courses, or projects, and for funding purposes. The European Journal of General Practice will publish a series of articles based on this document. In this first article, background, objectives, methodology and relevant literature are discussed. In subsequent articles, the results will be presented.

[Prescription of generic drugs in general practice. Results of a survey of general practitioners]. / Verordnung von Generika in der hausärztlichen Praxis: Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Hausärzten.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Switching brand-name drugs to generics is reasonable and desired for economic reasons. Few data exist about problems, if any, during the switching in general practice. In this survey, the view of general practitioners (GPs) should be ascertained. METHODS: GPs in five counties in the German federal states Thüringen and Baden-Württemberg, who took part in a study on generic drug prescribing, were asked to complete a questionnaire about experiences and attitudes toward generic drug prescription. RESULTS: A total of 195 (84%) of 233 GPs answered the questionnaire. Two thirds (127/195) stated, that brands and generics are pharmacologically equivalent. Many of these GPs estimated to prescribe generic drugs in > 50% of instances; fewer doctors did so, if they had doubts as to the equivalence of generics (65% vs. 46%; p < 0.05). Nearly 8% reported generics being less effective, and 10% observed new adverse effects after switching. Many GPs appointed the following barriers: cooperation with hospitals and colleagues (86%), GP's lack of time (68%), and communication problems with the patient (50%). GPs estimated that > 10% of patients strictly reject generic drugs. CONCLUSION: An optimized cooperation between GPs and hospital physicians could facilitate the consumption of generic potential in pharmacotherapy. Reasons for the obvious contrast between the proven pharmacological equivalence of brand-name and generic drugs and the problems encountered after switching reported by GPs should be further studied.