German ambulatory care physicians' perspectives on continuing medical education - a national survey.

INTRODUCTION: This survey aimed to investigate German ambulatory physicians' opinions about mandatory continuing medical education (CME) and CME resources shortly before the introduction of mandatory CME in 2004. METHODS: A structured national telephone survey of general practitioners and specialists was conducted. Main outcome measures were opinions about mandatory CME, preferred CME media, and financial aspects of CME. Data analysis applied Pearson's correlation coefficient for explorative analysis of correlations, analysis of variance for group comparison, and chi(2)-test for investigation of distribution of 2 or more categorical variables. RESULTS: Of the 511 participants, 73% felt that CME supported them in keeping up to date with new medical knowledge, yet only half believed in its ability to minimize medical errors or increase quality of patient care. Traditional ways of learning were preferred. Significant differences in CME behavior were found between primary-care physicians and specialists, the latter using more communicative media. Also, a small group of very skeptical physicians who do not agree with the need for CME in general was identified. Average expenditure for CME was estimated between 500 and 1000 Euros per year. A majority of physicians called for other parties, eg, health insurances or government, to share the financial responsibility for CME. DISCUSSION: Mandatory CME was accepted as a necessity already before the new legislation took effect, with prevailing skepticism at the same time. Future research is needed on how to motivate physicians and especially certain subgroups of physicians to use CME methods shown to be effective in changing clinical behavior.

German ambulatory care physicians' perspectives on clinical guidelines - a national survey.

BACKGROUND: There has been little systematic research about the extent to which German physicians accept or reject the concept and practice of a) clinical practice guidelines (CPG) and b) evidence based medicine (EBM)The aim of this study was to investigate German office-based physicians' perspective on CPGs and EBM and their application in medical practice. METHODS: Structured national telephone survey of ambulatory care physicians, four thematic blocks with 21 questions (5 point Likert scale). 511 office-based general practitioners and specialists. Main outcome measures were the application of Clinical Practice Guidelines in daily practice, preference for sources of guidelines and degree of knowledge and acceptance of EBM. In the data analysis Pearson's correlation coefficient was used for explorative analysis of correlations. The comparison of groups was performed by Student's t-test. Chi2 test was used to investigate distribution of two or more categorical variables. RESULTS: Of the total study population 55.3% of physicians reported already using guidelines in the treatment of patients. Physicians in group practices (GrP) as well as general practitioners (GP) agreed significantly more with the usefulness of guidelines as a basis for patient care than doctors in single practices (SP) or specialists (S) (Student's t-test mean GP 2.57, S 2.84, p < 0.01; mean GrP 2.55, SP 2.80, p < 0.05). 33.1% of the participants demonstrated a strong rejection to the application of guidelines in patient care. Acceptance of guidelines from a governmental institution was substantially lower than from physician networks or medical societies (36.2% vs. 53.4% vs. 62.0%). 73.8% of doctors interpret EBM as a combination of scientific research and individual medical knowledge; 80% regard EBM as the best basis for patient care. CONCLUSION: Despite a majority of physicians accepting and applying CPGs a large group remains that is critical and opposed to the utilization of CPGs in daily practice and to the concept of EBM in general. Doctors in single practice and specialists appear to be more critical than physicians in group practices and GPs. Future research is needed to evaluate the willingness to acquire necessary knowledge and skills for the promotion and routine application of CPGs.

[Improvement of health-related quality of life in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome under CPAP therapy]. / Verbesserung der gesundheitsspezifischen Lebensqualität unter CPAP-Therapie bei Patienten mit obstruktivem Schlafapnoesyndrom.

BACKGROUND: Only poor data regarding changes in quality of life in patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) under continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy concerning long-term effects are available. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this study, 85 patients were evaluated before and under CPAP therapy using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Quality of Life, the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), and the Quality of Life Index (QL-Index). The results of patients with continuous usage of CPAP (n = 66) were compared with a control group of patients who discontinued CPAP therapy (n = 19). RESULTS: VAS (before CPAP 56.9 +/- 27.0, under CPAP 67.2 +/- 21.8 mm; p = 0.027) as well as the NHP dimensions "Energy" (before CPAP 44.2 +/- 39.5, under CPAP 25.0 +/- 34.2 points; p < 0.001), "Emotional reactions" (before CPAP 24.7 +/- 22.5, under CPAP 11.8 +/- 18.8 points; p < 0,001), and "Sleep problems" (before CPAP 32.0 + 30.0, under CPAP 21.5 + 27.2 points; p = 0.005) showed a significant improvement after 16 +/- 9-month follow-up. In the control group, none of the instruments displayed a significant change. A correlation between CPAP compliance (mask hours) and changes in quality of life was not detected. CONCLUSION: Thus, even suboptimal CPAP usage might bring benefit regarding quality of life. As not all health-related instruments or dimensions were able to display the effects on quality of life, there is a need to translate and validate disease-specific instruments into the German language.