COVID-19 assessment in family practice-A clinical decision rule based on self-rated symptoms and contact history.

The study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contact history and clinical symptoms and to develop decision rules for ruling-in and ruling-out SARS-CoV-2 infection in family practice. We performed a prospective diagnostic study. Consecutive inclusion of patients coming for COVID-PCR testing to 19 general practices. Contact history and self-reported symptoms served as index test. PCR testing of nasopharyngeal swabs served as reference standard. Complete data were available from 1141 patients, 605 (53.0%) female, average age 42.2 years, 182 (16.0%) COVID-PCR positive. Multivariable logistic regression showed highest odds ratios (ORs) for "contact with infected person" (OR 9.22, 95% CI 5.61-15.41), anosmia/ageusia (8.79, 4.89-15.95), fever (4.25, 2.56-7.09), and "sudden disease onset" (2.52, 1.55-4.14). Patients with "contact with infected person" or "anosmia/ageusia" with or without self-reported "fever" had a high probability of COVID infection up to 84.8%. Negative response to the four items "contact with infected person, anosmia/ageusia, fever, sudden disease onset" showed a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.99). This was present in 446 (39.1%) patients. NPV of "completely asymptomatic," "no contact," "no risk area" was 1.0 (0.96-1.0). This was present in 84 (7.4%) patients. To conclude, the combination of four key items allowed exclusion of SARS-CoV-2 infection with high certainty. With the goal of 100% exclusion of SARS-CoV-2 infection to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 to the population level, COVID-PCR testing could be saved only for patients with negative response in all items. The decision rule might also help for ruling-in SARS-CoV-2 infection in terms of rapid assessment of infection risk.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and cardiovascular or pulmonary complications in ambulatory care: A risk assessment based on routine data.

BACKGROUND: Risk factors of severe COVID-19 have mainly been investigated in the hospital setting. We investigated pre-defined risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection and cardiovascular or pulmonary complications in the outpatient setting. METHODS: The present cohort study makes use of ambulatory claims data of statutory health insurance physicians in Bavaria, Germany, with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test confirmed or excluded SARS-CoV-2 infection in first three quarters of 2020. Statistical modelling and machine learning were used for effect estimation and for hypothesis testing of risk factors, and for prognostic modelling of cardiovascular or pulmonary complications. RESULTS: A cohort of 99 811 participants with PCR test was identified. In a fully adjusted multivariable regression model, dementia (odds ratio (OR) = 1.36), type 2 diabetes (OR = 1.14) and obesity (OR = 1.08) were identified as significantly associated with a positive PCR test result. Significant risk factors for cardiovascular or pulmonary complications were coronary heart disease (CHD) (OR = 2.58), hypertension (OR = 1.65), tobacco consumption (OR = 1.56), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR = 1.53), previous pneumonia (OR = 1.53), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (OR = 1.25) and type 2 diabetes (OR = 1.23). Three simple decision rules derived from prognostic modelling based on age, hypertension, CKD, COPD and CHD were able to identify high risk patients with a sensitivity of 74.8% and a specificity of 80.0%. CONCLUSIONS: The decision rules achieved a high prognostic accuracy non-inferior to complex machine learning methods. They might help to identify patients at risk, who should receive special attention and intensified protection in ambulatory care.

Ambulatory specialist costs and morbidity of coordinated and uncoordinated patients before and after abolition of copayment: A cohort analysis.

To strengthen the coordinating function of general practitioners (GPs) in the German healthcare system, a copayment of €10 was introduced in 2004. Due to a perceived lack of efficacy and a high administrative burden, it was abolished in 2012. The present cohort study investigates characteristics and differences of GP-coordinated and uncoordinated patients in Bavaria, Germany, concerning morbidity and ambulatory specialist costs and whether these differences have changed after the abolition of the copayment. We performed a retrospective routine data analysis, using claims data of the Bavarian Association of the Statutory Health Insurance Physicians during the period 2011-2012 (with copayment) and 2013-2016 (without copayment), covering 24 quarters. Coordinated care was defined as specialist contact only with referral. Multinomial regression modelling, including inverse probability of treatment weighting, was used for the cohort analysis of 500 000 randomly selected patients. Longitudinal regression models were calculated for cost estimation. Coordination of care decreased substantially after the abolition of the copayment, accompanied by increasing proportions of patients with chronic and mental diseases in the uncoordinated group, and a corresponding decrease in the coordinated group. In the presence of the copayment, uncoordinated patients had €21.78 higher specialist costs than coordinated patients, increasing to €24.94 after its abolition. The results indicate that patients incur higher healthcare costs for specialist ambulatory care when their care is uncoordinated. This effect slightly increased after abolition of the copayment. Beyond that, the abolition of the copayment led to a substantial reduction in primary care coordination, particularly affecting vulnerable patients. Therefore, coordination of care in the ambulatory setting should be strengthened.

Impact of regional socioeconomic variation on coordination and cost of ambulatory care: investigation of claims data from Bavaria, Germany.

OBJECTIVES: A considerable proportion of regional variation in healthcare use and health expenditures is to date still unexplained. The aim was to investigate regional differences in the gatekeeping role of general practitioners and to identify relevant explanatory variables at patient and district level in Bavaria, Germany. DESIGN: Retrospective routine data analysis using claims data held by the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. PARTICIPANTS: All patients who consulted a specialist in ambulatory practice within the first quarter of 2011 (n=3 616 510). OUTCOMES MEASURES: Of primary interest is the effect of district-level measures of rurality, physician density and multiple deprivation on (1) the proportion of patients with general practitioner (GP) coordination of specialist care and (2) the mean amount in Euros claimed by specialist physicians. RESULTS: The proportion of patients whose use of specialist services was coordinated by a GP was significantly higher in rural areas and in highly deprived regions, as compared with urban and less deprived regions. The hierarchical models revealed that increasing age and the presence of chronic diseases are the strongest predictive factors for coordination by a GP. In contrast, the presence of mental illness, an increasing number of medical condition categories and living in a city are predictors for specialist use without GP coordination. The amount claimed per patient was €10 to €20 higher in urban districts and in regions with lower deprivation. Hierarchical models indicate that this amount is on average higher for patients living in towns and lower for patients in regions with high deprivation. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that regional deprivation is closely associated with the way in which patients access primary and specialist care. This has clear consequences, both with respect to the role of the general practitioner and the financial costs of care.

Costs of coordinated versus uncoordinated care in Germany: results of a routine data analysis in Bavaria.

OBJECTIVES: The efficiency of a gatekeeping system for a health system, as in Germany, remains unclear particularly as access to specialist ambulatory care is not restricted. The aim was to compare the costs of coordinated versus uncoordinated patients (UP) in ambulatory care; with additional subgroup analysis of patients with mental disorders. DESIGN: Retrospective routine data analysis of patients with statutory health insurance, using claims data held by the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. A patient was defined as uncoordinated if he or she visited at least 1 specialist without a referral from a general practitioner within a quarter. Outcomes were compared with propensity score matching analysis. PARTICIPANTS: The study encompassed all statutorily insured patients in Bavaria contacting at least 1 ambulatory specialist in the first quarter of 2011 (n=3 616 510). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was total costs of ambulatory care; secondary outcomes were financial claims of general physicians, specialists and for medication. RESULTS: The average age was 55.3 years for coordinated patients (CP, n=1 629 302), 48.3 years for UP (n=1 825 840). CP more frequently had chronic diseases (85.4%) as compared with UP (67.5%). The total unadjusted financial claim per patient was higher for UP (€234.52) than for CP (€224.41); the total adjusted difference was -€9.65 (95% CI -11.64 to -7.67), indicating lower costs for CP. The cost differences increased with increasing age. Total adjusted difference per patient with mental diseases as documented with an International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 F-diagnosis, was -€20.31 (95% CI -26.43 to -14.46). CONCLUSIONS: Coordination of care is associated with lower ambulatory healthcare expenditures and is of particular importance for patients who are more vulnerable to medical interventions, especially for elderly and patients with mental disorders. The role of general practitioners as coordinators should be strengthened to improve care for these patients as this could also help to frame a more efficient health system.

Quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice - systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Academic infrastructures and networks for clinical research in primary care receive little funding in Germany. We aimed to provide an overview of the quantity, topics, methods and findings of randomised controlled trials published by German university departments of general practice. METHODS: We searched Scopus (last search done in April 2015), publication lists of institutes and references of included articles. We included randomised trials published between January 2000 and December 2014 with a first or last author affiliated with a German university department of general practice or family medicine. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool, and study findings were quantified using standardised mean differences (SMDs). RESULTS: Thirty-three trials met the inclusion criteria. Seventeen were cluster-randomised trials, with a majority investigating interventions aimed at improving processes compared with usual care. Sample sizes varied between 6 and 606 clusters and 168 and 7807 participants. The most frequent methodological problem was risk of selection bias due to recruitment of individuals after randomisation of clusters. Effects of interventions over usual care were mostly small (SMD <0.3). Sixteen trials randomising individual participants addressed a variety of treatment and educational interventions. Sample sizes varied between 20 and 1620 participants. The methodological quality of the trials was highly variable. Again, effects of experimental interventions over controls were mostly small. CONCLUSIONS: Despite limited funding, German university institutes of general practice or family medicine are increasingly performing randomised trials. Cluster-randomised trials on practice improvement are a focus, but problems with allocation concealment are frequent.

Prevalence of use and level of awareness of CAM in older people - results from the KORA-Age study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing proportion of older adults in Europe there is only limited knowledge of CAM use among the elderly. This analysis aims to provide estimates for the prevalence of CAM use in persons with an age of ≥65, and to investigate correlations of CAM use with demographic characteristics. METHODS: Based on participants of the MONICA/KORA studies S1-S4 who were born before 1944, a random sample of 1,079 was selected for comprehensive medical examinations. Questions were presented in structured face-to-face interviews conducted from February to November 2009. RESULTS: Data on CAM use were available for 1,026 subjects with a mean age of 76 years, ranging from 65 to 93 years. 14% of the participants were unaware of CAM. The overall prevalence of CAM use was estimated 37% with minor differences between age groups, but clear differences between male (29%) and female (44%) participants. 1-year prevalence of CAM use was 22% (16% males, 28% females). 1-year of CAM use was associated with a higher level of education in both men and women; with higher income in men; and with more actual diseases in women. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that awareness of CAM is high even among people ≥65 years. Estimates for the prevalence of CAM use confirm the relevance of this treatment sector in the healthcare system for the elderly.

[A research roadmap for complementary and alternative medicine - what we need to know by 2020].

BACKGROUND: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella's several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. METHODS: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7­9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9­11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella's scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. RESULTS: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens' needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. CONCLUSIONS: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens' attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EU-wide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe's reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.

High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research.

The use of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) has increased over the past two decades in Europe. Nonetheless, research investigating the evidence to support its use remains limited. The CAMbrella project funded by the European Commission aimed to develop a strategic research agenda starting by systematically evaluating the state of CAM in the EU. CAMbrella involved 9 work packages covering issues such as the definition of CAM; its legal status, provision and use in the EU; and a synthesis of international research perspectives. Based on the work package reports, we developed a strategic and methodologically robust research roadmap based on expert workshops, a systematic Delphi-based process and a final consensus conference. The CAMbrella project suggests six core areas for research to examine the potential contribution of CAM to the health care challenges faced by the EU. These areas include evaluating the prevalence of CAM use in Europe; the EU cititzens' needs and attitudes regarding CAM; the safety of CAM; the comparative effectiveness of CAM; the effects of meaning and context on CAM outcomes; and different models for integrating CAM into existing health care systems. CAM research should use methods generally accepted in the evaluation of health services, including comparative effectiveness studies and mixed-methods designs. A research strategy is urgently needed, ideally led by a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to fostering systematic communication between EU governments, the public, charitable and industry funders, researchers and other stakeholders. A European Centre for CAM should also be established to monitor and further a coordinated research strategy with sufficient funds to commission and promote high quality, independent research focusing on the public's health needs and pan-European collaboration. There is a disparity between highly prevalent use of CAM in Europe and solid knowledge about it. A strategic approach on CAM research should be established to investigate the identified gaps of knowledge and to address upcoming health care challenges.

The effect of mental comorbidity on service delivery planning in primary care: an analysis with particular reference to patients who request referral without prior assessment.

BACKGROUND: In their everyday practice, primary-care physicians are often asked to refer patients to a specialist without a prior appointment in primary care. Such referrals are problematic, and one might suspect that patients who make such requests are more likely to have mental comorbidities predisposing them toward higher utilization of health-care services. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 307 patients of 13 primary-care practices who requested referral to a specialist without a prior appointment in primary care were given a Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) containing questions that related to depression, anxiety, panic disorder, and somatoform disorder (independent variables). Further information was obtained about these patients' primary-care contacts, referrals, and days taken off from work with a medical excuse over the course of one year (dependent variables). A regression model was used to compare these patients with 977 other primary-care patients. RESULTS: The groups of patients who did and did not request specialist referral without a primary-care appointment did not differ to any statistically significant extent with respect to mental comorbidity. In the overall group, somatoform disorder was found to be associated with a high rate of primary-care contacts (odds ratio [OR] 2.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-4.3). High rates of referral were strongly correlated (percentage of variance explained, R²) with depression (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-4.0; R² = 35.3%), anxiety (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.8-9.6; R² = 34.5%), panic disorder (OR 5.9, 95% CI 2.1-16.4; R² = 34.3%), and somatoform disorder (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.0; R² = 34.6%). Taking a long time off from work with a medical excuse was correlated with depression (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-4.8), anxiety (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.7-10.5), and somatoform disorder (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.2). CONCLUSION: Mental comorbidity contributes to the increased utilization of health-care services. This should be borne in mind whenever a patient requests many referrals to specialists (either with or without a prior appointment in primary care). It is important to identify "doctor-hopping" patients so that the causes of their behavior can be recognized, discussed, and properly treated.

Diagnostic accuracy of clinical symptoms in obstructive airway diseases varied within different health care sectors.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy and diagnostic patterns of clinical symptoms in patients suspected to suffer from obstructive airway diseases (OADs) within different health care sectors. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Ten general practices (219 patients), one practice of pneumologists (259 patients) and one specialist hospital (300 patients). Sensitivities, specificities, positive (LR+), and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios of clinical symptoms were compared with lung function testing. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 21% had asthma. Sensitivities increased and specificities decreased from outpatient to hospital setting. The multivariate model of adjusted likelihood ratios for COPD showed LR+=4.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]=2.09-11.29) and LR-=0.07 (95% CI=0.01-0.43) of the combination "wheezing," "dyspnea when going upstairs," "smoking" in general practice. In hospital, the combination "dyspnea when going upstairs," "dyspnea during minimal exercise," and "smoking" showed LR+=3.34 (95% CI=2.08-5.31) and LR-=0.02 (95% CI=0.01-0.12). The combination "no coughing," "dyspnea attacks," and "no smoking" showed LR+=4.08 (95% CI=1.67-10.4) and LR-=0.24 (95% CI=0.12-0.58) for asthma in general practice. The combination "dyspnea attacks" and "no dyspnea when walking" showed LR+=6.48 (95% CI=1.01-40.94) and LR-=0.28 (95% CI=0.11-0.75) for asthma in hospital. CONCLUSION: Clinical decision rules for OAD need to be derived from original studies in their respective settings or assessed on their transferability to other settings.

How do patients from eastern and western Germany compare with regard to their preferences for shared decision making?

BACKGROUND: Increasing emphasis is being placed on involving patients in decisions concerning their health. This shift towards more patient engagement by health professionals and towards more desire by patients for participation may be partly based on socio-political factors. METHODS: To compare the preferences for shared decision making of patients from eastern and western Germany we analysed five patient samples (n = 2318) (general practice patients and schizophrenia patients from eastern and western Germany). Patients' role preferences for shared decisions were measured using the decision-making subscale of the Autonomy Preference Index. RESULTS: Patients resident in eastern Germany expressed lower preferences for shared decision making than patients in western Germany. This was true after controlling for socio-demographic variables and for patient group. CONCLUSION: The cultural imprint (e.g. western vs. former communist society) seems to have a significant influence on patients' expectations and behaviour in the medical encounter. Health services providers need to be aware that health attitudes within the same health system might vary for historical and cultural reasons. The engagement of patients in medical decisions might not be susceptible to a 'one size fits all' approach; doctors should instead aim to accommodate the individual patient's desire for autonomy.

Pragmatic randomized trial evaluating the clinical and economic effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic low back pain.

In a randomized controlled trial plus a nonrandomized cohort, the authors investigated the effectiveness and costs of acupuncture in addition to routine care in the treatment of chronic low back pain and assessed whether the effects of acupuncture differed in randomized and nonrandomized patients. In 2001, German patients with chronic low back pain were allocated to an acupuncture group or a no-acupuncture control group. Persons who did not consent to randomization were included in a nonrandomized acupuncture group. All patients were allowed to receive routine medical care in addition to study treatment. Back function (Hannover Functional Ability Questionnaire), pain, and quality of life were assessed at baseline and after 3 and 6 months, and cost-effectiveness was analyzed. Of 11,630 patients (mean age=52.9 years (standard deviation, 13.7); 59% female), 1,549 were randomized to the acupuncture group and 1,544 to the control group; 8,537 were included in the nonrandomized acupuncture group. At 3 months, back function improved by 12.1 (standard error (SE), 0.4) to 74.5 (SE, 0.4) points in the acupuncture group and by 2.7 (SE, 0.4) to 65.1 (SE, 0.4) points among controls (difference=9.4 points (95% confidence interval 8.3, 10.5); p<0.001). Nonrandomized patients had more severe symptoms at baseline and showed improvements in back function similar to those seen in randomized patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was euro10,526 (euros) per quality-adjusted life year. Acupuncture plus routine care was associated with marked clinical improvements in these patients and was relatively cost-effective.

[Should acupuncture be reimbursed? Three acupuncture programmes of German Statutory Health Insurance Funds (SHI) and their scientific evaluation]. / Soil Akupunktur erstattet werden? Die drei Modellvorhaben der gesetzlichen Krankenkassen und ihrer wissenschaftlichen Begleitung: Allgemeiner Hintergrund.

An estimated 40,000 physicians offer acupuncture treatment to patients in Germany. Due to a decision of the German Federal Committee of SHI-accredited Physicians and Health Insurance Funds, acupuncture treatment for chronic low back pain, headache and osteoarthritic pain may be reimbursed from 2000 onwards if patients and physicians participate in specific scientifically evaluated model projects of the Statutory Health Insurance Funds. Currently, three separate acupuncture programmes are offered by different Statutory Health Insurance Funds. The scientific evaluation of all these programmes includes both randomised trials (comparing acupuncture to no treatment, sham acupuncture or standard treatment in 300 to several thousands of patients) and large cohort studies. Details of the three programmes will be presented in the following chapters.