Identification of Important Factors Affecting Use of Digital Individualised Coaching and Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in General Practice: A Qualitative Feasibility Study.

Most type 2 diabetes patients are treated in general practice and there is a need of developing and implementing efficient lifestyle interventions. eHealth interventions have shown to be effective in promoting a healthy lifestyle. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility, including the identification of factors of importance, when offering digital lifestyle coaching to type 2 diabetes patients in general practice. We conducted a qualitative feasibility study with focus group interviews in four general practices. We identified two overall themes and four subthemes: (1) the distribution of roles and lifestyle interventions in general practice (subthemes: external and internal distribution of roles) and (2) the pros and cons for digital lifestyle interventions in general practice (subthemes: access to real life data and change in daily routines). We conclude that for digital lifestyle coaching to be feasible in a general practice setting, it was of great importance that the general practitioners and practice nurses knew the role and content of the intervention. In general, there was a positive attitude in the general practice setting towards referring type 2 diabetes patients to digital lifestyle intervention if it was easy to refer the patients and if easily understandable and accessible feedback was implemented into the electronic health record. It was important that the digital lifestyle intervention was flexible and offered healthcare providers in general practice an opportunity to follow the type 2 diabetes patient closely.

Determinants for acceptance of preventive treatment against heart disease - a web-based population survey.

BACKGROUND: Patients' perception of risk and their lifestyle choices are of major importance in the treatment of common chronic diseases. This study reveals determinants for and knowledge about why people accept or reject preventive medical interventions against heart disease. METHODS: A representative sample of 40-60-year-old Danish inhabitants was invited to participate in a web-based survey. The respondents were presented with a hypothetical scenario and asked to imagine that they were at an increased risk of heart disease, and subsequently presented with an offer of a preventive medical intervention. The aim was to elicit preference structures when potential patients are presented with different treatment conditions. RESULTS: About one third of the respondents were willing to accept preventive medical treatment. Respondents with personal experience with heart disease were more likely to accept treatment than respondents with family members with heart disease or no prior experience with heart disease. The willingness to accept treatment was similar for both genders, and when adjusting for experience with heart disease, age was not associated with willingness to accept treatment. Socioeconomic status in terms of lower education was positively associated with acceptance. The price of treatment reduced willingness to accept for the lower income groups, whereas it had no effect in the highest income group. Some 57% of respondents who were willing to accept treatment changed their decision following information on potential side effects. CONCLUSIONS: In accordance with our pre-study hypothesis, individuals with low income were more sensitive to price than individuals with high income. Thus, if the price of preventive medication increases above certain limits, a substantial proportion of the population may refrain from treatment. More than half of the respondents who were initially willing to accept treatment changed their decision when informed about the presence of potential side effects. This is an important observation in relation to risk communication, since most side effects occur very seldom, and a skewed assessment of treatment efficacy compared to risk of side effects may refrain some patients from treatment. Thus, more research is needed to better allow patients to compare treatment efficacy with risk of side effects in quantitative terms.

[Preferences for user fees in general practice and the establishment of general practitioners in rural areas]. / Praeferencer for brugerbetaling i almen praksis og nedsaettelse i yderkantsområder.

This study elicits the preferences of general practitioners (GPs) and patients for different ways of mitigating problems with a general and structural lack of GPs in Denmark. The supply of GPs can be increased in rural areas if the GPs are compensated (approximately 470,000 DKK per year in extra surplus) and if other non-pecuniary factors are implemented. The study further showed that there was a positive willingness to pay for a consultation (74-85 DKK), although the majority of the GPs do not support this initiative.