Factors related to the development of health-promoting community activities in Spanish primary healthcare: two case-control studies.

OBJECTIVE: Spanish primary healthcare teams have the responsibility of performing health-promoting community activities (CAs), although such activities are not widespread. Our aim was to identify the factors related to participation in those activities. DESIGN: Two case-control studies. SETTING: Performed in primary care of five Spanish regions. SUBJECTS: In the first study, cases were teams that performed health-promoting CAs and controls were those that did not. In the second study (on case teams from the first study), cases were professionals who developed these activities and controls were those who did not. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Team, professional and community characteristics collected through questionnaires (team managers/professionals) and from secondary sources. RESULTS: The first study examined 203 teams (103 cases, 100 controls). Adjusted factors associated with performing CAs were percentage of nurses (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.14), community socioeconomic status (higher vs lower OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.95) and performing undergraduate training (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.93). In the second study, 597 professionals responded (254 cases, 343 controls). Adjusted factors were professional classification (physicians do fewer activities than nurses and social workers do more), training in CAs (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.1), team support (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.5 to 5.7), seniority (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.09), nursing tutor (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.5), motivation (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.8 to 7.5), collaboration with non-governmental organisations (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2 to 3.1) and participation in neighbourhood activities (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.9 to 5.1). CONCLUSIONS: Professional personal characteristics, such as social sensitivity, profession, to feel team support or motivation, have influence in performing health-promoting CAs. In contrast to the opinion expressed by many professionals, workload is not related to performance of health-promoting CAs.

Age differences in presentation, diagnosis pathway and management of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The gap in survival between older and younger European cancer patients is getting wider. It is possible that cancer in the elderly is being managed or treated differently than in their younger counterparts. This study aims to explore age disparities with respect to the clinical characteristics of the tumour, diagnostic pathway and treatment of colorectal cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cross sectional study in 5 Spanish regions. Consecutive incident cases of CRC were identified from pathology services. MEASUREMENTS: From patient interviews, hospital and primary care clinical records, we collected data on symptoms, stage, doctors investigations, time duration to diagnosis/treatment, quality of care and treatment. RESULTS: 777 symptomatic cases, 154 were older than 80 years. Stage was similar by age group. General symptoms were more frequent in the eldest and abdominal symptoms in the youngest. No differences were found regarding perception of symptom seriousness and symptom disclosure between age groups as no longer duration to diagnosis or treatment was observed in the oldest groups. In primary care, only ultrasound is more frequently ordered in those <65 years. Those >80 years had a significantly higher proportion of iron testing and abdominal XR requested in hospital. We observed a high resection rate independently of age but less adjuvant chemotherapy in Stage III colon cancer, and of radiotherapy in stage II and III rectal cancer as age increases. CONCLUSION: There are no relevant age disparities in the CRC diagnosis process with similar stage, duration to diagnosis, investigations and surgery. However, further improvements have to be made with respect to adjuvant therapy.

Efficacy of high doses of oral penicillin versus amoxicillin in the treatment of adults with non-severe pneumonia attended in the community: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Streptococcus pneumoniae is the bacterial agent which most frequently causes pneumonia. In some Scandinavian countries, this infection is treated with penicillin V since the resistances of pneumococci to this antibiotic are low. Four reasons justify the undertaking of this study; firstly, the cut-off points which determine whether a pneumococcus is susceptible or resistant to penicillin have changed in 2008 and according to some studies published recently the pneumococcal resistances to penicillin in Spain have fallen drastically, with only 0.9% of the strains being resistant to oral penicillin (minimum inhibitory concentration>2 µg/ml); secondly, there is no correlation between pneumococcal infection by a strain resistant to penicillin and therapeutic failure in pneumonia; thirdly, the use of narrow-spectrum antibiotics is urgently needed because of the dearth of new antimicrobials and the link observed between consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics and emergence and spread of antibacterial resistance; and fourthly, no clinical study comparing amoxicillin and penicillin V in pneumonia in adults has been published. Our aim is to determine whether high-dose penicillin V is as effective as high-dose amoxicillin for the treatment of uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: We will perform a parallel group, randomised, double-blind, trial in primary healthcare centres in Spain. Patients aged 18 to 65 without significant associated comorbidity attending the physician with signs and symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection and radiological confirmation of the diagnosis of pneumonia will be randomly assigned to either penicillin V 1.6 million units thrice-daily during 10 days or amoxicillin 1,000 mg thrice-daily during 10 days. The main outcome will be clinical cure at 14 days, defined as absence of fever, resolution or improvement of cough, improvement of general wellbeing and resolution or reduction of crackles indicating that no other antimicrobial treatment will be necessary. Any clinical result other than the anterior will be considered as treatment failure. A total of 210 patients will be recruited to detect a non-inferiority margin of 15% between the two treatments with a minimum power of 80% considering an alpha error of 2.5% for a unilateral hypothesis and maximum possible losses of 15%. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial addresses the long-standing hypothesis that the administration of high doses of a narrow-spectrum antibiotic (penicillin V) in patients with non-severe pneumonia attended in the community is not less effective than high doses of amoxicillin (treatment currently recommended) in patients under the age of 65 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2012-003511-63.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of neuroreflexotherapy for subacute and chronic low back pain in routine general practice: a cluster randomized, controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A cluster randomized, controlled trial was performed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding patients' referral to neuroreflexotherapy intervention to the usual management of subacute and chronic low back pain in routine general practice. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neuroreflexotherapy consists of the temporary implantation of epidermal devices in trigger points in the back and referred tender points in the ear. The efficacy of this procedure for treating subacute and chronic low back pain has been demonstrated in previous randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials. METHODS: Twenty-one primary care physicians working in seven primary care centers of the Spanish National Health Service in Palma de Mallorca, Spain, were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n = 11) or the control group (n = 10). The physicians recruited patients who had low back pain that had lasted for 14 or more days despite drug treatment and who did not meet criteria for surgery. The 45 patients recruited by physicians from the control group were treated according to the standard protocol, whereas the 59 patients recruited by physicians from the intervention group were, in addition, referred to neuroreflexotherapy intervention. The analysis of variables was performed taking into account that physicians, not patients, were randomly assigned. RESULTS: Patients underwent clinical evaluations at baseline and 15, 60, and 365 days later. At baseline, median intensity of pain was higher in patients undergoing neuroreflexotherapy than in control patients (visual analogue scale, 6.07; range, 4.67-8.80 vs. 5.15, range 4.11-8.00) and median duration of pain was also higher (48.1, range 28.4-211.1 vs. 17.5, range 15.0-91.5 days). At the last follow-up visit, patients treated with neuroreflexotherapy showed greater improvement than did control patients in low back pain (visual analogue scale, 5.5; range, 3.7-8.8 vs. 1.9; range, -1.2-3.0; P < 0.001); referred pain (visual analogue scale, 3.6; range, 2.7-7.3 vs. 0.6; range, -1.5-2.0; P = 0.001); and disability (Roland-Morris scale, 8.7; range, 2.0-13.3 vs. 2.0; range, -1.5-6.7; P = 0.007). Moreover, neuroreflexotherapy intervention was associated with a significantly (P < 0.035) lower number of consultations to private or public specialists, fewer indications of radiographs by primary care physicians, lower cost of drug treatment, and less duration of sick leave throughout the follow-up period. There were also differences in favor of neuroreflexotherapy intervention in the cost-effectiveness ratio for pain, disability, and quality of life that persisted in the most optimistic, the most conservative, and the average (break-even case) assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Referral to neuroreflexotherapy intervention improves the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the management of nonspecific low back pain.