The "General practitioner learning stations"-development, implementation and optimization of an innovative format for sustainable teaching in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Teaching general practice in a university setting is still challenging. In our department we have developed a teaching format with content from a previous lecture-style-teaching into an interactive small group format taught by frontline general practitioners (GPs). The "GP learning stations" introduce students to the skills and attributes of a GP working in primary care in a university setting. Our main objective was to understand whether the teaching format had proven itself sustainable in a university setting over eight years. Furthermore, we wanted to better understand the role of the GP as a medical educator. METHODS: More than eight years of experience in organizational and staff expenses were collected and analyzed. In addition, the grade point average of the students' evaluation was calculated and their free text answers were categorized and evaluated descriptively. During two teach-the-teacher seminars attending GPs were asked why they teach and if they feel equipped to teach the format. RESULTS: The initially high organizational and staff expenses were significantly reduced. The recruitment of GPs, their didactic contribution, and their joint creation of content went smoothly throughout the whole period. A total of 495 students participated in the regular evaluation. The analysis yielded a grade point average of 1.9, on a scale from 1 = very good to 6 = insufficient. In the free text answers students praised the educators, the format and the practical relevance. The interactive transfer of the content, the didactic competence of the educators and the spatial environment were viewed critically. Reasons for GPs to teach were the joy to pass on knowledge and experience, and to make the work of GPs more attractive to students. Most GPs felt prepared to teach through their experience as a physician although some felt unprepared to teach through their lack of didactic knowledge. CONCLUSION: Despite reducing the costs of the format, a grade point average of 1.9 could be achieved in the long term. This supports the teaching concept of learning stations and its "mixture of discussion, scientific background and role play, combined with (…) experiences and exciting individual cases from (GPs) everyday life", hopefully making general practice more attractive to the students.

Health literacy and eHealth among adult asthma patients - results of a cross sectional survey.

Background: To investigate HL (health literacy) and eHealth literacy (eHL) among two groups of asthma outpatients, those with prior asthma education and those without. In addition, we aimed to compare two shortened versions of a HL measure instrument.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a sample of adult asthma patients (n = 129). Half of them had received asthma patient education prior to the study (n = 64). The study collected demographic data, questions on HL (HLS-EU-Q16) and eHL (eHEALS).Results: In the main analysis respondents' mean HL values were almost identical in both groups, 11.9 (SD = 3.1) among trained and 11.8 (SD = 3.5) among untrained patients, demonstrating a problematic level of HL, according to the instrument. In the subdivision of sum scores, the HL level of trained patients was categorized more often as problematic (43%) than among untrained patients (20%). Bland-Altman plots of the 6-item and 16-item versions of the HLS-EU suggest only limited agreement between the versions. In terms of eHL, trained patients showed a mean of 3.0 (SD = 1.1) and untrained patients a mean of 3.2 (SD = 1.0). Analysis of HL and eHL showed no difference between groups.Conclusions: No consistent differences between groups were found, suggesting that trained patients did not benefit from asthma education regarding HL and eHL. The 6-item and 16-item versions of the HLS-EU were not easily interchangeable, limiting its use in a busy outpatient practice.AbbreviationseHEALSElectronic Health Literacy ScaleeHLElectronic Health Literacy HLS-EUEuropean Health Literacy Survey.

An Internet-Based Asthma Self-Management Program Increases Knowledge About Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma education (AE) is associated with reduced hospitalization and disability. We compared the effectiveness of an electronic AE program (eAEP) with a conventional face-to-face AE program (presence-based AEP; pAEP) for asthma knowledge (AK) with regard to self-management. METHODS: A randomized controlled pilot study was conducted in a pulmonary reha- bilitation clinic. AK was determined by means of the Asthma Knowledge Test (AKT). The change in AKT score within each group was calculated with a paired t-test. Group differences were estimated with adjusted linear regression models. RESULTS: In the intervention group (n = 41), the AKT score increased from 41.57 (standard deviation 5.63) at baseline to 45.82 (3.84) after completion of the eAEP (p < 0.001), and again to 47.20 (3.78) after completion of the pAEP (p = 0.046). In the control group (n = 41), the score increased from 41.73 (4.74) at baseline to 45.72 (3.65) after completion of the pAEP (p < 0.001). There was no relevant differ- ence in knowledge gain between the eAEP and the pAEP group after completion of the corresponding educational sessions (p = 0.881). The AKT score was higher in the eAEP group after obligatory participation in pAEP than in the group that only completed the pAEP (p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: An internet-based AEP could help to reduce the knowledge deficits of a large proportion of patients with asthma.

Participation factors for asthma education programs - a cross sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Although the impact of asthma education on important outcomes (e.g. emergency visits) has been well established, only an estimated quarter of asthma patients in Germany have received patient education yet. The aim of the study was to identify patient factors that could increase participation in asthma education programs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study investigated participation factors and differences between trained (n = 64) and untrained (n = 65) asthma patients from a large outpatient center in Germany. The survey included answers to asthma-related questions and open questions on patient education as well as such about knowledge of health literacy and eHealth. RESULTS: Mean age of participants was 55 ± 19 years and 61% were female. Trained patients were more likely to participate in disease management programs (odds ratio (OR) 6.85; 95%CI 2.17-21.59), were more frequently non-smokers (OR 0.07; 95%CI 0.01-0.85) and more often had an asthma action plan (OR 20.2; 1.55-263.41). Open questions' analysis of untrained asthma patients revealed that patients felt they were not adequately informed about asthma education (37%). About one-third of all patients (27%) showed openness to online asthma education. Analysis of HL and eHealth showed no difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Untrained asthma patients should be informed even more intensively by their physicians about the importance and value of asthma education. Asthma education does not seem to benefit patients' health literacy. Online asthma education is of interest to approximately one-third of asthma patients. This should be motivation to develop and implement online asthma education concepts.

Prospective observational study validating the German version of the Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT10).

The Control of Allergic Rhinitis and Asthma Test (CARAT10), developed by Portuguese experts, is the only questionnaire assessing asthma control under additional consideration of a frequently concurrent allergic rhinitis (AR), providing sub-scores for both diseases. Aims of this study were the translation and validation of its German version. Asthma patients both with and without AR were included at three primary care pulmologists´ practices in Southern Germany. After translation process, patients completed the CARAT10, the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ), the Asthma Control Test (ACT), and the Standardised Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ(S)). Item and scale characteristics as well as measures of reliability and validity of the CARAT10 were determined. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to test factorial validity. Data of 213 patients were analysed, 101 (47%) of them with concurrent AR. Missing responses were minimal and unsystematic. Cronbach´s α was 0.87 for the CARAT10 total score (TS) and 0.84 for each sub-score. Spearman´s correlation coefficients for the association of the CARAT10 TS with ACQ, ACT and AQLQ(S) were moderate to high and slightly higher in patients with AR. Higher correlations were found for its lower airway sub-score than the upper airway sub-score (all around 0.8 to all around 0.3). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the two-factorial scale structure of the CARAT10, with a two-factor model showing a better fit to the data than a one-factor model. The German version of the CARAT10 is an acceptable, reliable and valid tool. Our results suggest a recommended use in asthma patients with AR.

Effect of a combined brief narrative exposure therapy with case management versus treatment as usual in primary care for patients with traumatic stress sequelae following intensive care medicine: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial (PICTURE).

BACKGROUND: Traumatic events like critical illness and intensive care are threats to life and bodily integrity and pose a risk factor for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD affects the quality of life and morbidity and may increase health-care costs. Limited access to specialist care results in PTSD patients being treated in primary care settings. Narrative exposure therapy (NET) is based on the principles of cognitive behavioral therapy and has shown positive effects when delivered by health-care professionals other than psychologists. The primary aims of the PICTURE trial (from "PTSD after ICU survival") are to investigate the effectiveness and applicability of NET adapted for primary care with case management in adults diagnosed with PTSD after intensive care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an investigator-initiated, multi-center, primary care-based, randomized controlled two-arm parallel group, observer-blinded superiority trial conducted throughout Germany. In total, 340 adult patients with a total score of at least 20 points on the posttraumatic diagnostic scale (PDS-5) 3 months after receiving intensive care treatment will be equally randomized to two groups: NET combined with case management and improved treatment as usual (iTAU). All primary care physicians (PCPs) involved will be instructed in the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD according to current German guidelines. PCPs in the iTAU group will deliver usual care during three consultations. In the experimental group, PCPs will additionally be trained to deliver an adapted version of NET (three sessions) supported by phone-based case management by a medical assistant. At 6 and 12 months after randomization, structured blinded telephone interviews will assess patient-reported outcomes. The primary composite endpoint is the absolute change from baseline at month 6 in PTSD symptom severity measured by the PDS-5 total score, which also incorporates the death of any study patients. Secondary outcomes cover the domains depression, anxiety, disability, health-related quality-of-life, and cost-effectiveness. The principal analysis is by intention to treat. DISCUSSION: If the superiority of the experimental intervention over usual care can be demonstrated, the combination of brief NET and case management could be a treatment option to relieve PTSD-related symptoms and to improve primary care after intensive care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03315390 . Registered on 10 October 2017. German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00012589 . Registered on 17 October 2017.

How often do general practitioners use placebos and non-specific interventions? Systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys.

BACKGROUND: In a systematic review and meta-analysis we summarize the available evidence on how frequently general practitioners/family physicians (GPs) use pure placebos (e.g., placebo pills) and non-specific therapies (sometimes referred to as impure placebos; e.g., antibiotics for common cold). METHODS: We searched Medline, PubMed and SCOPUS up to July 2018 to identify cross-sectional quantitative surveys among GPs. Outcomes of primary interest were the percentages of GPs having used any placebo, pure placebos or non-specific therapies at least once in their career, at least once in the last year, at least monthly or at least weekly. Outcomes were described as proportions and pooled with random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 674 publications, 16 studies from 13 countries with a total of 2.981 participating GPs (range 27 to 783) met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of GPs having used any form of placebo at least once in their career ranged from 29% to 97%, in the last year at least once from 46% to 95%, at least monthly from 15% to 89%, and at least weekly from 1% to 75%. The use of non-specific therapies by far outnumbered the use of pure placebo. For example, the proportion of GPs using pure placebos at least monthly varied between 2% and 15% compared to 53% and 89% for non-specific therapies; use at least weekly varied between 1% and 3% for pure placebos and between 16% and 75% for non-specific therapies. Besides eliciting placebos effects, many other reasons related to patient expectations, demands and medical problems were reported as reasons for applying placebo interventions. CONCLUSION: High prevalence estimates of placebo use among GPs are mainly driven by the frequent use of non-specific therapies; pure placebos are used rarely. The interpretation of our quantitative findings is complicated by the diversity of definitions and survey methods.

Self-help guidebook improved quality of life for patients with irritable bowel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of a comprehensive self-help guidebook on the disease related quality of life for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The secondary aim was to evaluate whether the guidebook is less effective in IBS patients with depression, somatization disorder or panic disorder as a psychiatric comorbidity. METHODS: Prospective observational study. At baseline (t1), patients filled in the ´Functional Digestive Disorders Quality of Life´ (FDDQL) questionnaire and received the IBS guidebook together with an explanation of its content and use. Depression, anxiety and somatization were evaluated with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Three (t2) and six months (t3) later, the questionnaire was sent by mail to the patients for follow-up evaluation. Data were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA. RESULTS: 71 patients participated (74.6% female). 53 (74.6%) completed the final assessment at t3 after 6 months. The global FDDQL score increased from 49.3 (SD 12.7) at t1 to 64.3 (SD 16.0) at t3 (p < 0.001). There was a significant between-subjects effect on the global FDDQL score related to depression (p = 0.001), anxiety (p = 0.001) and somatization (p = 0.011). Thus, the quality of life of patients with psychosomatic comorbidity was lower at baseline, but showed a similar increase within the following six months. CONCLUSION: The self-help guidebook significantly improved measured quality of life for IBS patients. The use of screening questionnaires like PHQ might be valuable to identify patients with more complex problems. This might be helpful for them to intensify and adapt therapy. Further research has to evaluate if patients with psychological comorbidity are treated more effectively when they receive psychotherapy or specific medication in addition to the self-management guidebook.