A Saga-In-Progress: Challenges and Milestones on Our Way Toward the Nordic Core Values and Principles of Family Medicine/General Practice.

Late in 2020, the Nordic Colleges of General Practice published a joint statement specifying what General Practitioners stand for and intend to act upon, our Core Values and Principles. In this article, the authors describe and analyze challenges and milestones encountered on our 50-year journey toward the creation of that document. The shaping of Family Medicine/General Practice as an academic discipline began in the 1960's. During an initial, descriptive phase, the new specialty was defined, its educational curricula formulated, and the core competencies required to earn the title, Specialist in Family Medicine, were identified. Focus was not yet placed directly on the relationship between viable working principles and values, however. Then, the 1978 WHO Alma Ata Declaration affirmed health to be a fundamental human right, with primary health care as the heart of sustainable health care systems, indirectly mandating that the field of Family Medicine deliver value-based health care. A major step in that process was taken in 2001: The Norwegian College of General Practice launched their statement identifying the seven theses, Sju teser, that characterize the principles, purposes-and core values-of General Practice. Later, the Nordic colleges worked together to formulate the 2020 joint statement. We are confident that Family Medicine will continue to provide sustainable, relationship-based care, and to protect the human side of medicine. Sharing core values and principles can help us mobilize as effective advocates for our discipline and for our patients, the citizens whom we serve.

Screening and brief intervention targeting risky drinkers in Danish general practice--a pragmatic controlled trial.

AIMS: Recommendations for routine alcohol screening and brief counselling intervention in primary health care rest on results from intervention efficacy studies. By conducting a pragmatic controlled trial (PCT), we aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of the WHO recommendations for screening and brief intervention (SBI) in general practice. METHODS: A randomized PCT (brief counselling intervention vs no intervention) involving 39 Danish general practitioners (GPs). Systematic screening of 6897 adults led to inclusion of 906 risky drinkers, and research follow-up on 537 of these after 12-14 months. Outcome measures focused on patients' acceptance of screening and intervention and their self-reported alcohol consumption. RESULTS: Patient acceptance of screening and intervention -10.3% (N = 794) of the target population (N = 7, 691) explicitly refused screening. All intervention group subjects (N = 442) were exposed to an instant brief counselling session while only 17.9% of them (79/442) attended a follow-up consultation that was offered by their GP. Consumption Changes At one-year follow-up, average weekly consumption had increased by 0.7 drinks in both comparison groups. As secondary findings, we observed an indiscriminate absolute risk reduction (ARR = 0.08 (95% CI: -0.02; 0.18)) in male binge drinking, but adverse intervention effects for women on the secondary outcomes (binge drinking ARR = -0.30 (95% CI: -0.47; -0.09)). CONCLUSIONS: The results of brief interventions in everyday general practice performed on the basis of systematic questionnaire screening may fall short of theoretical expectations. When applied to non-selected groups in everyday general practice SBI may have little effect and engender diverse outcome. Women may be more susceptible to defensive reactions than men.

Screening in brief intervention trials targeting excessive drinkers in general practice: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of programmes of screening in general practice for excessive alcohol use and providing brief interventions. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials that used screening as a precursor to brief intervention. SETTING: General practice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number needed to treat, proportion of patients positive on screening, proportion given brief interventions, and effect of screening. RESULTS: The eight studies included for meta-analysis all used health questionnaires for screening, and the brief interventions included feedback, information, and advice. The studies contained several sources of bias that might lead to overestimates of the effects of intervention. External validity was compromised because typically three out of four people identified by screening as excessive users of alcohol did not qualify for the intervention after a secondary assessment. Overall, in 1000 screened patients, 90 screened positive and required further assessment, after which 25 qualified for brief intervention; after one year 2.6 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 3.4) reported they drank less than the maximum recommended level. CONCLUSIONS: Although even brief advice can reduce excessive drinking, screening in general practice does not seem to be an effective precursor to brief interventions targeting excessive alcohol use. This meta-analysis raises questions about the feasibility of screening in general practice for excessive use of alcohol.

Screening and brief intervention for excessive alcohol use: qualitative interview study of the experiences of general practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the suitability of a screening based intervention for excessive alcohol use by describing the experiences of general practitioners who tried such an intervention in their everyday practice. DESIGN: Qualitative interviews with general practitioners who had participated in a pragmatic study of a combined programme of screening and a brief intervention for excessive alcohol use. Doctors were interviewed either individually or in focus groups. A computer based, descriptive, phenomenological method was used to directly analyse the digitally recorded interviews. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 24 of 39 general practitioners in four Danish counties who volunteered to take part in the pragmatic study were interviewed. RESULTS: The doctors were surprised at how difficult it was to establish rapport with the patients who had a positive result on the screening and to ensure compliance with the intervention. Although the doctors considered the doctor-patient relationship robust enough to sustain targeting of alcohol use, they often failed to follow up on initial interventions, and some expressed a lack of confidence in their ability to counsel patients effectively on lifestyle issues. The doctors questioned the rationale of screening in young drinkers who may grow out of excessive drinking behaviour. The programme needed considerable resources, and it interrupted the natural course of consultations and was inflexible. The doctors could not recommend the screening and brief intervention programme, although they thought it important to counsel their patients on drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Screening for excessive alcohol use created more problems than it solved for the participating doctors. The results underline the value of carrying out pragmatic studies on the suitability of seemingly efficacious healthcare programmes.