Multimorbidity: can general practitioners identify the health conditions most important to their patients? Results from a national cross-sectional study in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Faced with patients suffering from more than one chronic condition, or multimorbidity, general practitioners (GPs) must establish diagnostic and treatment priorities. Patients also set their own priorities to handle the everyday burdens associated with their multimorbidity and these may be different from the priorities established by their GP. A shared patient-GP agenda, driven by knowledge of each other's priorities, would seem central to managing patients with multimorbidity. We evaluated GPs' ability to identify the health condition most important to their patients. METHODS: Data on 888 patients were collected as part of a cross-sectional Swiss study on multimorbidity in family medicine. For the main analyses on patients-GP agreement, data from 572 of these patients could be included. GPs were asked to identify the two conditions which their patient considered most important, and we tested whether either of them agreed with the condition mentioned as most important by the patient. In the main analysis, we studied the agreement rate between GPs and patients by grouping items medically-related into 46 groups of conditions. Socio-demographic and clinical variables were fitted into univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: In 54.9% of cases, GPs were able to identify the health condition most important to the patient. In the multivariate model, the only variable significantly associated with patient-GP agreement was the number of chronic conditions: the higher the number of conditions, the less likely the agreement. CONCLUSION: GPs were able to correctly identify the health condition most important to their patients in half of the cases. It therefore seems important that GPs learn how to better adapt treatment targets and priorities by taking patients' perspectives into account.

Appropriateness of bone density measurement in Switzerland: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: According to the WHO, osteoporosis is one of the most important non- communicable diseases worldwide. Different screening procedures are controversially discussed, especially concerning the concomitant issues of overdiagnosis and harm caused by inappropriate Dual X-ray Absorptiometry (DXA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the frequency and appropriateness of DXA as screening measure in Switzerland considering individual risk factors and to evaluate covariates independently associated with potentially inappropriate DXA screening. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study using insurance claim data of 2013. Among all patients with DXA screening, women < 65 and men < 70 years without osteoporosis or risk factors for osteoporosis were defined as receiving potentially inappropriate DXA. Statistics included descriptive measures and multivariable regressions to estimate associations of relevant covariates with potentially inappropriate DXA screening. RESULTS: Of 1,131,092 patients, 552,973 were eligible. Among those 2637 of 10,000 (26.4%) underwent potentially inappropriate DXA screening. Female sex (Odds ratio 6.47, CI 6.41-6.54) and higher age showed the strongest association with any DXA screening. Female gender (Odds ratio 1.84, CI 1.49-2.26) and an income among the highest 5% (Odds ratio 1.40, CI 1.01-1.98) were significantly positively associated with potentially inappropriate DXA screening, number of chronic conditions (Odds ratio 0.67, CI 0.65-0.70) and living in the central region of Switzerland (Odds ratio 0.67, CI 0.48-0.95) negatively. CONCLUSION: One out of four DXAs for screening purpose is potentially inappropriate. Stakeholders of osteoporosis screening campaigns should focus on providing more detailed information on appropriateness of DXA screening indications (e.g. age thresholds) in order to avoid DXA overuse.