Reasons for medication non-initiation: A qualitative exploration of the patients' perspective.

BACKGROUND: Non-initiation occurs when the doctor prescribes a new pharmacological treatment to a patient who does not fill the prescription. Non-initiation prevalence estimates range between 6% and 28% in Primary Care (PC) and it is associated with poorer clinical outcomes, more sick-leave days and higher costs. To date, the reasons for non-initiation have not been explored using a qualitative framework. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to identify reasons for medication non-initiation among PC patients with distinct treatment profiles (acute, chronic symptomatic and asymptomatic, and mental disorders). METHODS: An exploratory, explanatory qualitative study based on Grounded Theory. We conducted individual semi-structured interviews with 30 PC patients. A constant comparative method of analysis was performed. RESULTS: The results were similar for all therapeutic groups. The decision to initiate treatment is multifactorial. Users make a risk-benefit assessment which is influenced by their beliefs about the pathology and the medication, their emotional reaction, health literacy and cultural factors. The patients' context and relationship with the health system influence decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: The decision to initiate a treatment is strongly influenced by factors that health professionals can discuss with patients. Health professionals should explore patients' beliefs about benefits and risks to help them make informed decisions and promote shared decision-making. General practitioners should ensure that patients understand the benefits and risks of disease and treatment, while explaining alternative treatments, encouraging patients to ask questions and supporting their treatment decisions.

Systematic review: probiotics in the management of lower gastrointestinal symptoms - an updated evidence-based international consensus.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, a systematic review and Delphi consensus reported that specific probiotics can benefit adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and other gastrointestinal (GI) problems. AIM: To update the consensus with new evidence. METHODS: A systematic review identified randomised, placebo-controlled trials published between January 2012 and June 2017. Evidence was graded, previously developed statements were reassessed by an 8-expert panel, and agreement was reached via Delphi consensus. RESULTS: A total of 70 studies were included (IBS, 34; diarrhoea associated with antibiotics, 13; diarrhoea associated with Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy, 7; other conditions, 16). Of 15 studies that examined global IBS symptoms as a primary endpoint, 8 reported significant benefits of probiotics vs placebo. Consensus statements with 100% agreement and "high" evidence level indicated that specific probiotics help reduce overall symptom burden and abdominal pain in some patients with IBS and duration/intensity of diarrhoea in patients prescribed antibiotics or H. pylori eradication therapy, and have favourable safety. Statements with 70%-100% agreement and "moderate" evidence indicated that, in some patients with IBS, specific probiotics help reduce bloating/distension and improve bowel movement frequency/consistency. CONCLUSIONS: This updated review indicates that specific probiotics are beneficial in certain lower GI problems, although many of the new publications did not report benefits of probiotics, possibly due to inclusion of new, less efficacious preparations. Specific probiotics can relieve lower GI symptoms in IBS, prevent diarrhoea associated with antibiotics and H. pylori eradication therapy, and show favourable safety. This study will help clinicians recommend/prescribe probiotics for specific symptoms.

Systematic review: probiotics in the management of lower gastrointestinal symptoms in clinical practice -- an evidence-based international guide.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that the gut microbiota play an important role in gastrointestinal problems. AIM: To give clinicians a practical reference guide on the role of specified probiotics in managing particular lower gastrointestinal symptoms/problems by means of a systematic review-based consensus. METHODS: Systematic literature searching identified randomised, placebo-controlled trials in adults; evidence for each symptom/problem was graded and statements developed (consensus process; 10-member panel). As results cannot be generalised between different probiotics, individual probiotics were identified for each statement. RESULTS: Thirty seven studies were included; mostly on irritable bowel syndrome [IBS; 19 studies; treatment responder rates: 18-80% (specific probiotics), 5-50% (placebo)] or antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD; 10 studies). Statements with 100% agreement and 'high' evidence levels indicated that: (i) specific probiotics help reduce overall symptom burden and abdominal pain in some IBS patients; (ii) in patients receiving antibiotics/Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy, specified probiotics are helpful as adjuvants to prevent/reduce the duration/intensity of AAD; (iii) probiotics have favourable safety in patients in primary care. Items with 70-100% agreement and 'moderate' evidence were: (i) specific probiotics help relieve overall symptom burden in some patients with diarrhoea-predominant IBS, and reduce bloating/distension and improve bowel movement frequency/consistency in some IBS patients and (ii) with some probiotics, improved symptoms have led to improvement in quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Specified probiotics can provide benefit in IBS and antibiotic-associated diarrhoea; relatively few studies in other indications suggested benefits warranting further research. This study provides practical guidance on which probiotic to select for a specific problem.

The management of common gastrointestinal disorders in general practice A survey by the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG) in six European countries.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders account for 10% of all consultations in primary care. Little is known about the management of GI disorders by general practitioners (GP) across different European countries. AIM AND METHODS: We undertook a postal survey of randomly selected samples of GPs in six European countries (UK, Holland, Spain, Greece, Poland, Czech Republic) to determine patterns of diagnosis, management and service use in GI disorders. RESULTS: We received 939 responses, response rate 32%. Over 80% of GPs were aware of at least three national guidelines for gastrointestinal disease. The availability of open access endoscopy ranged from 28% (Poland) to over 80% (Holland, Czech and UK). For uninvestigated dyspepsia the preferred first line management was proton pump inhibitor therapy (33-82%), Helicobacter pylori test and treat (19-47%), early endoscopy (5-32%), specialist referral (2-21%). Regarding irritable bowel syndrome, 23% of respondents were familiar with one or more diagnostic criteria, but between 7% (Netherlands) and 32% (Poland) would ask for a specialist opinion before making the diagnosis. CONCLUSION: The wide variation between GPs both between and within countries partly reflects variations in health care systems but also differing levels of knowledge and awareness, factors which are relevant to educational and research policy.

Salud rural en un mundo cambiante / Rural health in a changing world

No disponible

A shared care approach to the management of erectile dysfunction in the community.

Erectile dysfunction (ED) affects men of all ages and results in considerable distress and impact on quality of life for those who suffer from it. As ED is associated with a wide variety of under-lying conditions and cardiovascular co-morbidities, there is a requirement for diversity of treatment options and several factors must be considered to customise and optimise therapy. In the ideal holistic approach to management of the ED patient, both primary care and specialist physicians have an important role to play. This article reports on a sequential approach for the diagnosis and treatment of ED, with an emphasis on 'shared care'. The deliberations are based on a pan-European inter-disciplinary group that met at the Lygon Arms, UK on 22 February 2002.

Guidelines on the management of H.pylori in primary care: development of an implementation strategy.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guideline programmes as being developed in many European countries contribute to quality of care in general practice. The applicability of multicountry guidelines will depend on country-specific circumstances. Implementation programmes are required for optimal compliance with guidelines. OBJECTIVE: In order to achieve optimal follow-up of the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG) Helicobacter pylori guidelines in general practice, we analysed factors that might obstruct compliance at national level, and integrated this in implementation programmes. METHOD: Discussion groups in eight participating countries reviewed epidemiological characteristics and diagnostic and therapeutic resources that would hinder applicability. The groups also indicated potential constraints to optimal compliance and developed a national implementation programme. RESULTS: Helicobacter pylori infection rates and peptic ulcer incidence vary widely across Europe, as do the availability, access and reimbursement of diagnostic test facilities for H.pylori Minor adaptation of the ESPCG guidelines is required in some countries. Implementation programmes have been developed and partially carried out in all countries. CONCLUSION: A pan-European approach to H.pylori guideline development should result in a framework of best practice into which nationally specific details can be incorporated, thus guaranteeing optimal follow-up of the guidelines and true improvement of dyspepsia management in primary care.

[A tumor registry at a primary care center]. / Registro de tumores en un centro de asistencia primaria.

AIM: We analysed the data obtained from a tumor register kept in a Primary Care Centre (PCC) to find out the variables which contribute to the diagnostic and therapeutic evolution of our patients. DESIGN: Retrospective study on every Neoplasia registered in the Centre. PATIENTS: 293 malignant Neoplasias were recorded in the period between June 1984 and June 1990 (184 in males--62.8%; and 109 in women--37.2%). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The intervals between symptom and consultation (ISC), between consultation and referral (ICR), between referral and diagnosis (IRD) and between diagnosis and treatment (IDT) were evaluated. The average age at the moment of diagnosis was 59 (SD:13). There were 3.9% double neoplasias. The most frequent type was lung cancer with 41 cases (14%). This also occupied first place among men, whereas breast cancer did so among women. 10 tumours were diagnosed by screening: 4 breast, 5 cervix and 1 endometrium, which represent 16%, 50% and 14.3% respectively of these cancers. For all neoplasias taken together, the average time of ISC was 44.09 days (SD 73.48) and of IDT 25.75 days (SD:61.55). Given the wide variations, we assessed the most common types of tumour. CONCLUSIONS: The usefulness of keeping a tumour register in a Primary Care Centre, which could identify the factors which affect diagnostic delays and find possible corrective measures to reduce the delays, was appraised.