Psychological stress of general practitioners in the care of patients with palliative care needs: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, general practitioners play a pivotal role in palliative care provision. Caring for patients with palliative care needs can be a burden for general practitioners, highlighting the importance of self-care and mental health support. This study aimed to explore the role of palliative care in general practitioners' daily work, the stressors they experience, their coping mechanisms, and the potential benefits of Advance Care Planning in this context. METHODS: An exploratory approach was employed, combining a short quantitative survey with qualitative interviews. The analysis was based on a structuring qualitative content analysis, following a deductive-inductive procedure and integrating the Stress-Strain Model and Lazarus' Transactional Model of Stress and Coping. We recruited eleven general practitioners to take part in the study. RESULTS: General practitioners viewed palliative care as integral to their practice but faced challenges such as time constraints and perceived expertise gaps. Societal taboos often hindered conversations on the topic of death. Most general practitioners waited for their patients to initiate the topic. Some general practitioners viewed aspects of palliative care as potentially distressing. They used problem-focused (avoiding negative stressors, structuring their daily schedules) and emotion-focused (discussions with colleagues) coping strategies. Still, general practitioners indicated a desire for specific psychological support options. Advance Care Planning, though relatively unfamiliar, was acknowledged as valuable for end-of-life conversations. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care can be associated with negative psychological stress for general practitioners, often coming from external factors. Despite individual coping strategies in place, it is advisable to explore concepts for professional psychological relief. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not registered.

Patient-reported reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccinations vs. comparator vaccinations: a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple vaccines were developed. Little was known about reactogenicity and safety in comparison to established vaccines, e.g. influenza, pneumococcus, or herpes zoster. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare self-reported side effects in persons vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with the incidence of side effects in persons receiving one of the established vaccines. METHODS: A longitudinal observational study was conducted over a total of 124 days using web-based surveys. Persons receiving either a vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 or one of the established vaccines (comparator group) were included. In the first questionnaire (short-term survey), 2 weeks after vaccination, mainly local and systemic complaints were evaluated. The long-term survey (42 days after vaccination) and follow-up survey (124 weeks after vaccination) focused on medical consultations for any reason. Multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the vaccine type (SARS-CoV-2 vs. comparator) and demographic factors. RESULTS: In total, data from 16,636 participants were included. Self-reported reactogenicity was lowest in the comparator group (53.2%) and highest in the ChAdOx1 group (85.3%). Local reactions were reported most frequently after mRNA-1273 (73.9%) and systemic reactions mainly after vector-based vaccines (79.8%). Almost all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines showed increased odds of reporting local or systemic reactions. Approximately equal proportions of participants reported medical consultations. None in the comparator group suspected a link to vaccination, while this was true for just over one in 10 in the mRNA-1273 group. The multivariate analysis showed that people with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were not more likely to report medical consultations; patients who had received a regimen with at least one ChAdOx1 were even less likely to report medical consultations. Younger age, female gender and higher comorbidity were mostly associated with higher odds of medical consultations. CONCLUSION: The rate of adverse reactions after established vaccinations was roughly comparable to previous studies. Two weeks after vaccination, participants in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination group reported more local and systemic local reactions than participants in the comparator group. In the further course, however, there were no higher odds of medical consultations in either of the two groups. Thus, altogether, we assume comparable safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS-ID DRKS00025881 and DRKS-ID DRKS00025373.

Reactogenicity and safety of COVID-19 primary immunisation and booster vaccination regimens: a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, recommendations regarding the vaccination have been very dynamic. Although the safety and efficacy of different vaccines have been analysed, data were scarce for vaccine regimens combining different vaccines. We therefore aimed to evaluate and compare the perceived reactogenicity and need for medical consultation after the most frequently applied homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens. METHODS: In an observational cohort study, reactogenicity and safety were assessed within a maximum follow-up time of 124 days using web-based surveys. Reactogenicity was assessed for different vaccination regimens 2 weeks after a vaccination (short-term survey). The following surveys, long-term and follow-up surveys, focused on the utilisation of medical services, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related. RESULTS: Data of 17,269 participants were analysed. The least local reactions were seen after a ChAdOx1 - ChAdOx1 regimen (32.6%, 95% CI [28.2, 37.2]) and the most after the first dose with mRNA-1273 (73.9%, 95% CI [70.5, 77.2]). Systemic reactions were least frequent in participants with a BNT162b2 booster after a homologous primary immunisation with ChAdOx1 (42.9%, 95% CI [32.1, 54.1]) and most frequent after a ChAdOx1 - mRNA-1273 (85.5%, 95% CI [82.9, 87.8]) and mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 regimen (85.1%, 95% CI [83.2, 87.0]). In the short-term survey, the most common consequences were medication intake and sick leave (after local reactions 0% to 9.9%; after systemic reactions 4.5% to 37.9%). In the long-term and follow-up surveys, between 8.2 and 30.9% of participants reported consulting a doctor and between 0% and 5.4% seeking hospital care. The regression analyses 124 days after the first and after the third dose showed that the odds for reporting medical consultation were comparable between the vaccination regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis revealed differences in reactogenicity between the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination regimens in Germany. The lowest reactogenicity as reported by participants was seen with BNT162b2, especially in homologous vaccination regimens. However, in all vaccination regimens reactogenicity rarely led to medical consultations. Small differences in seeking any medical consultation after 6 weeks diminished during the follow-up period. In the end, none of the vaccination regimens was associated with a higher risk for medical consultation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS DRKS00025881 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025373 ). Registered on 14 October 2021. DRKS DRKS00025373 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025881 ). Registered on 21 May 2021. Registered retrospectively.

Physicians' assessment of the Bavarian drug-expenditure control system: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In 2014 a new system for drug expenditures, the Wirkstoffvereinbarung (WSV, English: Active substance agreement) was implemented in Bavaria. In pre-defined indication groups, economic prescription of medications shall be enabled based on the selection, quantity, and proportion of an individual drug. Ambulatory care physicians receive quarterly trend reports on their prescribing behavior. This study examines physicians' perceptions of the WSV. METHODS: Qualitative interviews (n = 20) and seven focus groups (n = 36) were conducted with ambulatory care physicians (e.g. general practitioners, cardiologists, pulmonologists). The methodology followed Qualitative Content Analysis. RESULTS: Physicians generally accepted the necessity of prescribing economically. The majority of them rated the WSV positively and better than the previous system. As an improvement, they especially named timely feedback in form of easily understandable trend reports, encouraging self-reflection as well as allowing early control options. Problems perceived were drug discount contracts that were strongly criticized as leading to patients mixing up medications. Some perceived constraints of therapeutic freedom. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the WSV is mostly viewed positively by physicians. The restrictions of therapeutic freedom partially perceived might be met by improved information on the reasons why some drugs are rated as less economical than others. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Main ID: DRKS00019820 (German Register of Clinical Studies and World Health Organization).

[General Practitioners' Experiences with COVID-19: a Survey After the First Wave of the Pandemic in March/April 2020]. / Erfahrungen von HausärztInnen mit COVID-19 und der Pandemie ­ ein Survey nach der ersten Pandemiewelle im März/April 2020.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mar-Apr 2020) posed significant challenges for primary care. The goal of this study was to analyse the burden of the crisis situation as experienced by the general practitioners (GPs) at its beginning and over the course of the pandemic and to identify factors predictive of the sense of being overburdened. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a total of 6300 randomly selected GPs in four federal states of Germany were contacted per post in order to survey changes in health care they provided and their psychological burden in the context of the pandemic between August and October 2020. RESULTS: The response rate was 23%; 46% of the participants were female. At the beginning of the pandemic, 40% of the participants experienced a high or a very high level of being overburdened; later on, it was only 10%. With increasing numbers of COVID patients, the sense of being overburdened increased, as also their perceived capability to care for COVID patients. Predictors of a sense of being overburdened were, among others, a high level of psychological stress, excessive organising efforts, poor capability to care for COVID patients, and scarce supply of protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Despite a sense of being overburdened initially, GPs felt increasingly capable of caring for COVID patients. To help GPs in future crisis situations like this pandemic, organization of care should be simplified to the extent possible so that they can focus on patient care.

Reactogenicity after heterologous and homologous COVID-19 prime-boost vaccination regimens: descriptive interim results of a comparative observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Due to safety signals after vaccination with COVID-19 vector vaccines, several states recommended to complete the primary immunization series in individuals having received one dose of ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) with an mRNA vaccine. However, data on safety and reactogenicity of this heterologous regimen are still scarce. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the reactogenicity and the frequency of medical consultations after boost vaccination in a heterologous regimen with ChAdOx1 and mRNA-vaccines (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Pfizer or mRNA-1273, Moderna) to homologous regimens with ChAdOx1 or mRNA-vaccines, respectively. METHODS: In an observational cohort study reactogenicity and safety were assessed 14-19 days (short-term) and 40 to 56 days (long-term) after the boost vaccination using web-based surveys. In the short-term survey solicited and unsolicited reactions were assessed, while the long-term survey focussed on health problems leading to medical consultation after the vaccination, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related. RESULTS: In total, 9146 participants completed at least one of the surveys (ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1: n = 552, ChAdOx1/mRNA: n = 2382, mRNA/mRNA: n = 6212). In the short-term survey, 86% with ChAdOx1/mRNA regimen reported at least one reaction, in the ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 and mRNA/mRNA cohorts 58% and 76%, respectively (age and sex adjusted p < 0.0001). In the long-term survey, comparable proportions of individuals reported medical consultation (ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 vs. ChAdOx1/mRNA vs. mRNA/mRNA: 15% vs. 18% vs. 16%, age and sex adjusted p = 0.398). Female gender was associated with a higher reactogenicity and more medical consultations. Younger age was associated with a higher reactogenicity, whereas elderly people reported more medical consultations. CONCLUSION: Although the short-term reactogenicity was higher with the heterologous regimen than with the homologous regimens, other factors such as higher efficacy and limited resources during the pandemic may prevail in recommending specific regimens.

Vitamin-K-antagonist phenprocoumon versus low-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with atrial fibrillation: a real-world analysis of German claims data.

BACKGROUND: For stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly prescribed instead of vitamin-K-antagonists (VKA). For some patients a lower dosage of DOACs (ld-DOACs) is recommended. Ld-DOAC prescribing seems to be common, although previous studies did not show clear superiority of ld-DOACs over warfarin. In Germany, phenprocoumon is used almost exclusively as VKA. Randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs and phenprocoumon in the general population of patients with AF do not exist. Therefore, we aimed to compare ld-DOACs and phenprocoumon in a real-world setting in Germany. METHODS: In a retrospective observational cohort study, claims data from a group of small to medium-sized health insurance companies were analysed. Risks for the outcomes thromboembolism, death and major bleeding were estimated by Cox regression. Out of 93,685 patients with atrial fibrillation and a first prescription of an oral anticoagulant, 20,179 receiving VKA and 21,724 ld-DOACs (29.6% of all DOAC patients) were included. For the sensitivity analysis phenprocoumon was compared to the five ld-DOAC groups (ld-apixaban, ld-dabigatran, ld-edoxaban, ld-rivaroxaban, and the composite of all ld-DOACs) after propensity-score matching. RESULTS: Phenprocoumon was associated with statistically significant fewer thromboembolic events (HR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.13, 1.48], p < .001) and deaths (HR = 1.52, 95% CI [1.41, 1.63], p < .001) and a non-significant higher bleeding risk (HR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.79, 1.00], p = .051) than composite ld-DOAC. Regarding the subgroups, only patients with ld-apixaban had a statistically significant higher risk for thromboembolic events (HR = 1.42, 95% CI [1.21, 1.65], p < .001) and a lower bleeding risk (HR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.65, 0.86], p < .001). Ld-apixaban, ld-edoxaban, and ld-rivaroxaban were associated with a higher risk of death. The sensitivity analysis confirmed these associations. CONCLUSION: Phenprocoumon seems to be superior to ld-DOACs for patients with AF. As a hypothesis phenprocoumon might turn out to be the wiser choice for high-risk patients with AF as compared to ld-DOACs, especially regarding thromboembolic events and death. Therefore, RCTs comparing ld-DOACs with phenprocoumon are needed.

Effectiveness of an online education program for asthma patients in general practice: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Asthma education programs (AEPs) have been shown to increase quality of life and reduce emergency treatments and hospital admissions. Despite the proven benefits, only a minority of asthma patients attend such programs. To increase the number of educated patients, an online education program (electronic AEP, eAEP) for asthma patients has been developed. The present study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the eAEP in terms of asthma knowledge, asthma control and emergency treatments in general practice settings. METHODS: This is a cluster randomized controlled trial including 100 patients with bronchial asthma from 20 general practices in Bavaria, Germany. General practices will be randomly assigned to either the intervention or control group. Patients in the intervention group will receive access to the eAEP and instructions to complete this program within two weeks. Patients in the control group will receive usual care including a referral to face-to-face AEP (fAEP) by a certified primary care physician or a pulmonologist according to guideline recommendations. Furthermore, patients of both the intervention and control groups will be invited to a follow-up consultation in their general practice after completion of the eAEP and fAEP (three weeks and twelve weeks after study inclusion, respectively) to discuss any open issues. Outcomes for both groups will be assessed at baseline (t0), after two weeks (t1), three months (t2) and six months (t3). The primary outcome is the comparison of asthma knowledge gain between intervention and control groups after completion of the eAEP (two weeks after study inclusion) and fAEP (twelve weeks after study inclusion), respectively. Secondary outcomes include asthma control, frequency of emergency treatments, patient autonomy as well as attitudes towards asthma medication. DISCUSSION: The results of the present trial will provide knowledge about the effectiveness of an online education program for asthma patients compared to usual care in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00028805 . Registered 22 April 2022.

[Prescribing behavior of Bavarian general practitioners at the inpatient-outpatient interface within the context of the Bavarian active substance agreement-qualitative results of the WirtMed Study]. / Verordnungsverhalten von bayerischen Hausärzt*innen an der stationär-ambulanten Schnittstelle vor dem Hintergrund der Bayerischen Wirkstoffvereinbarung ­ Qualitative Ergebnisse der WirtMed-Studie.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2014, the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians of Bavaria introduced the active substance agreement (WSV) for the transparent control of pharmaceutical expenditure within the framework of the efficiency principle (§ 12 of the Fifth Book of the German Social Code [SGB V]). It replaced the prescribing target scheme. Regarding the role of the WSV, the article presents the reasons of the general practitioners (GPs) for or against a further prescription of drugs from the hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a qualitative study design, individual interviews (n = 18) and two focus groups (n = 10) were conducted with Bavarian GPs between November 2019 and March 2020 and evaluated according to qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: With the introduction of the WSV, recourse concerns decreased for GPs overall. Patient-oriented care and the professional correctness of therapy decisions are of great importance in prescribing, ahead of cost-effectiveness. Economic challenges arise with discharge medication, especially with the lead substance target of oral anticoagulants, the generic targets for antidiabetics, and for therapeutics for the cardiovascular system. Generally criticized are drug discount contracts, which often lead to drug changes after hospital discharge. There are individual reports of a "predominance" of hospital physicians when prescribing, which is contrary to their own economic actions as GPs. According to the GPs, there is a lack of cross-sectoral cost responsibility. CONCLUSIONS: In the view of GPs, a smooth interface transition is not yet available in the outpatient sector despite a framework agreement on discharge management and the new control system of the WSV. An economical supply of drugs continues to require political discussion across sectors, but also across federal states.

Exploring physicians and patients' perspectives for current interventions on thyroid nodules using a MCDA method.

BACKGROUND: The detection of thyroid cancer has rapidly increased over last few decades without an increase in disease specific mortality. Several studies claim that the diagnose of thyroid nodules through routine ultrasound imaging is often the trigger for cascade effects leading to unnecessary follow-up over many years or to invasive treatment. The objective of this study was to explore physicians' and patients' insights and preferences regarding the current interventions on thyroid nodules. METHODS: An online survey was developed using a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework, the EVIdence based Decision-Making (EVIDEM). The EVIDEM core model used in this study encompassed 13 quantitative criteria and four qualitative criteria. Participants were asked to provide weights referring to what matters most important in general for each criterion, performance scores for appraising the interventions on thyroid nodules and their consideration of impact of contextual criteria. Normalized weights and standardized scores were combined to calculate a value contribution across all participants, additionally differences across physicians and patients' group were explored. RESULTS: 48 patients and 31 physicians were included in the analysis. The value estimate of the interventions on thyroid nodules reached 0.549 for patients' group and 0.5 was reported by the physicians' group, compared to 0.543 for all participants. The highest value contributor was 'Comparative effectiveness' (0.073 ± 0.020). For the physicians' group, 'Comparative safety' (0.050 ± 0.023) was given with higher value. And for the patients' group, 'Type of preventive benefits' (0.059 ± 0.022) contributed more positively to the value estimation. 51% participants considered 'Population priorities and access' having a negative impact on the interventions of nodules.66% participants thought that the 'system capacity' had a negative impact. CONCLUSION: Our study shows participants' preferences on each criterion, i.e., physician indicated keeping the interventions safe and effective more important, patients indicated quality of life after receiving interventions more important. Through comparison among participants, differences have been highlighted, which can make better communication between physicians and patients. This study provides a supportive decision-making for healthcare providers when they explored the interventions on thyroid nodules.

The quality of COPD care in German general practice-A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a common health problem to be dealt with in primary care. Little is known about the quality of care provided for patients with COPD in Germany. Therefore, we wanted to assess the current quality of care delivered by a primary care network (PCN) for patients with COPD. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in collaboration with a primary care network (PCN). All patients of the PCN aged 40 years and older with a diagnosis of COPD were identified through electronic health records (EHR). A set of quality indicators (QIs) developed in accordance with current COPD-guidelines were appraised through numerical data retrieved from the EHR. RESULTS: In total, 2,568 patients with COPD were identified. Their mean age was 67 (SD±12) years, 49% were male. Thirty-five percent had a parallel diagnosis of asthma. There was no documentation of any spirometry for 54% of patients; 29% had a spirometry within the previous year. An influenza vaccination was documented for 37% within the preceding 12 months; 12% received a pneumococcal vaccination in the last 6 years. Smoking status was documented for 44% within the last year. CONCLUSION: The quality of care for patients with COPD in the PCN seemed suboptimal, despite the presence of a Disease Management Program (DMP). This finding is likely to apply widely to German general practice. Quality assessment through currently available EHR data was challenging due to non-standardized and insufficient documentation.

Protection against the overuse and underuse of health care - methodological considerations for establishing prioritization criteria and recommendations in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Initiatives such as "Choosing Wisely" in the USA and "Smarter Medicine" in Switzerland have published lists of widely overused health care services. The German initiative "Choosing Wisely Together (Gemeinsam Klug Entscheiden)" follows this example. The goal of our study was to prioritize important recommendations against the overuse and underuse of health care services. The final list of recommendations will be published in the German guideline "Protection against the overuse and underuse of health care". METHODS: First, a multidisciplinary expert panel established a catalogue of prioritization criteria. Second, we extracted all the recommendations from evidence- and consensus-based German College of General Practice and Family Medicine (DEGAM) guidelines and National Health Care Guidelines (NVL). Third, the recommendations were rated by two independent panels (general practitioners and other health care professionals involved/not involved in guideline development). The prioritization process was finalized in a consensus conference held by DEGAM's Standing Guideline Committee (SLK). RESULTS: Eleven prioritization criteria were established. A total of 782 recommendations were extracted and rated by 98 physicians and other health care professionals in a survey. In the voting process, more than 80% of the recommendations were eliminated. After the final consensus conference, twelve recommendations from DEGAM guidelines, nine DEGAM addenda and 17 NVL recommendations were chosen for inclusion in the guideline, for a total of 38 recommendations. CONCLUSION: The selection procedure proved helpful in identifying the highest priority recommendations with which to combat the overuse and underuse of health care services. To date, in Germany there has been no attempt to compile such a list by using a systematic and transparent methodology. Hence, the guideline that results from this process can fill an important gap.

[Coding in general practice-Will the ICD-11 be a step forward?] / Codieren in der Hausarztpraxis ­ Wird die ICD-11 ein Fortschritt sein?

Primary care physicians in Germany don't benefit from coding diagnoses-they are coding for the needs of others. For coding, they mostly are using either the thesaurus of the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI) or self-made cheat-sheets. Coding quality is low but seems to be sufficient for the main use case of the resulting data, which is the morbidity adjusted risk compensation scheme that distributes financial resources between the many German health insurance companies.Neither the International Classification of Diseases and Health Related Problems (ICD-10) nor the German thesaurus as an interface terminology are adequate for coding in primary care. The ICD-11 itself will not recognizably be a step forward from the perspective of primary care. At least the browser database format will be advantageous. An implementation into the 182 different electronic health records (EHR) on the German market would probably standardize the coding process and make code finding easier. This method of coding would still be more cumbersome than the current coding with self-made cheat-sheets.The first steps towards a useful official cheat-sheet for primary care have been taken, awaiting implementation and evaluation. The International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2) already provides an adequate classification standard for primary care that can also be used in combination with ICD-10. A new version of ICPC (ICPC-3) is under development. As the ICPC-2 has already been integrated into the foundation layer of ICD-11 it might easily become the future standard for coding in primary care. Improving communication between the different EHR would make taking over codes from other healthcare providers possible. Another opportunity to improve the coding quality might be creating use cases for the resulting data for the primary care physicians themselves.

German general practitioners' self-reported management of patients with chronic depression.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic depression (persisting symptoms for ≥2 years) are a clinically relevant group with extensive (co)morbidity, high functional impairment and associated costs in primary care. The General Practitioner (GP) is the main health professional attending to these patients. The aim of this study was to examine the GPs' perception on managing patients with chronic depression. METHODS: We performed an explorative cross-sectional study with a systematic sample of GPs in central Germany. Source of data was a written questionnaire (46 items). Descriptive analysis was carried out. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty (out of 1000; 22%) GPs participated. 93% of the GPs distinguish between care for patients with chronic depression and acute depressive episode. 92% would recommend psychotherapeutic co-treatment to the chronically depressed patient. 52% of GPs would favour a general restraint on antidepressants (ADs) in older chronically depressed patients (≥ 75 years) whereas 40% suggest long-term pharmacotherapy. If severe physical comorbidity is present GPs would be restrictive in prescribing ADs (65%) or would urgently refer to specialist psychiatric services (40%). In case of a comorbid anxiety disorder 66% of the GPs would suggest a combined psycho- und pharmacotherapy. If a substance use disorder coexists 84% would prefer urgent referrals to specialist services. CONCLUSIONS: Participating GPs report awareness towards chronic depression in their patients. Physical and mental comorbidity seem to play an important role in GPs' treatment decisions.

The search for person-related information in general practice: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: General practice is person-focused. Contextual information influences the clinical decision-making process in primary care. Currently, person-related information (PeRI) is neither recorded in a systematic way nor coded in the electronic medical record (EMR), and therefore not usable for scientific use. AIM: To search for classes of PeRI influencing the process of care. METHODS: GPs, from nine countries worldwide, were asked to write down narrative case histories where personal factors played a role in decision-making. In an inductive process, the case histories were consecutively coded according to classes of PeRI. The classes found were deductively applied to the following cases and refined, until saturation was reached. Then, the classes were grouped into code-families and further clustered into domains. RESULTS: The inductive analysis of 32 case histories resulted in 33 defined PeRI codes, classifying all personal-related information in the cases. The 33 codes were grouped in the following seven mutually exclusive code-families: 'aspects between patient and formal care provider', 'social environment and family', 'functioning/behaviour', 'life history/non-medical experiences', 'personal medical information', 'socio-demographics' and 'work-/employment-related information'. The code-families were clustered into four domains: 'social environment and extended family', 'medicine', 'individual' and 'work and employment'. CONCLUSION: As PeRI is used in the process of decision-making, it should be part of the EMR. The PeRI classes we identified might form the basis of a new contextual classification mainly for research purposes. This might help to create evidence of the person-centredness of general practice.

What do people know and think about medical overuse? an online questionnaire study in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Medical overuse is defined as health care services that exceed the individual needs of patients and when the potential harms of medical interventions exceed their benefits. It has impacts on patients as well as on health care resources. To address medical overuse, it is important to understand the knowledge and experiences of overuse on the side of patients. RESEARCH QUESTIONS: What is the citizens' understanding of overuse? How do they assess its relevance, causes, consequences and potential solutions? METHODS: A quantitative online survey was conducted. The participants were asked to state what they understand by medical overuse. Statements on causes, consequences and possible solutions were evaluated. Recruitment was carried out via a panel of a market research institute (Schlesinger Group). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 406 participants. In terms of age and gender, the sample corresponded to the distribution in the German population. The majority had never heard of medical overuse (58%). About 60% assumed that medical overuse means "too much medicine including overtreatment and overtesting". Medical overuse was mainly suspected for services not covered by the public health insurance system (56%), surgical interventions (45%) and medication prescriptions (37%). Reasons for medical overuse were seen in uncoordinated care and financial incentives, but also in the expectations of patients. The main problem with medical overuse was seen in rising health care costs, while harmful physical and mental consequences for patients were mentioned less often. In order to reduce medical overuse, little importance was attributed to a primary care based system or higher financial contribution of patients. Instead, stricter cost control on the side of physicians and better coordination between care providers were suggested as solutions. Differences in socio-demographic characteristics hardly showed any differences in response behavior. CONCLUSION: More than half of the respondents had never heard of medical overuse. Overuse was mainly associated with financial causes and consequences. It was not seen that overuse can be harmful for patients directly. The limited awareness of the problem of overuse probably is a barrier to tackling it effectively. Communicating the topic to the public might therefore be an effective start to mitigate medical overuse. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Many citizens seem not to be familiar with the concept of medical overuse, especially not with the fact that it may directly cause harm to patients. Informing citizens about the harms of medical overuse might be helpful in mitigating it.

'The health care system is more like a business'-medical overuse from the patients' perspective in Germany: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Medical overuse exposes patients to unnecessary risks of harm. It is an open question whether and how patients perceive the concept of medical overuse, its causes and negative consequences. DESIGN: A qualitative study design, using elements of the Grounded Theory Approach by Strauss and Corbin. SETTING: Between May 2017 and January 2020, we recruited participants and conducted face-to-face interviews in the participants' homes. Data collection took place in Bavaria, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 16 participants (female=8, male=8) with various characteristics for the study. We used different strategies such as flyers in supermarkets, pharmacies, participants spreading information about the study or local multipliers (snowball sampling). RESULTS: The participants mostly defined medical overuse as too much being done but understood the concept superficially. During the interviews, most participants could describe examples of medical overuse. They named a variety of direct and indirect drivers with economic factors suspected to be the main driver. As a consequence of medical overuse, participants named the physical and emotional harm (eg, side effects of medication). They found it difficult to formulate concrete solutions. In general, they saw themselves more in a passive role than being responsible for bringing about change and solutions themselves. Medical overuse is a 'problem of the others'. The participants emphasised that health education is important in reducing medical overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Medical overuse was little discussed among participants, although many participants reported experiences of too much medicine. Health education and strengthening the patients' self-responsibility can play a vital role in reducing medical overuse.

The need for a change in medical research thinking. Eco-systemic research frames are better suited to explore patterned disease behaviors.

Many practicing physicians struggle to properly evaluate clinical research studies - they either simply do not know them, regard the reported findings as 'truth' since they were reported in a 'reputable' journal and blindly implement these interventions, or they disregard them as having little pragmatic impact or relevance to their daily clinical work. Three aspects for the latter are highlighted: study populations rarely reflect their practice population, the absolute average benefits on specific outcomes in most controlled studies, while statistically significant, are so small that they are pragmatically irrelevant, and overall mortality between the intervention and control groups are unaffected. These observations underscore the need to rethink our research approaches in the clinical context - moving from the predominant reductionist to an eco-systemic research approach will lead to knowledge better suited to clinical decision-making for an individual patient as it takes into account the complex interplay of multi-level variables that impact health outcomes in the real-world setting.

Development of a self-assessment tool to address the functioning of community-dwelling older adults in general practice: a validation study of the EFA23 questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is increasingly prevalent among ageing patients, leading to reduced daily functioning. To address the challenges posed by multimorbidity in older adults, a person- and context-centred approach is needed. This study aimed to develop a questionnaire as a self-assessment tool for older adults focusing on functioning in general practice based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was employed in the development and validation of the German EFA23 (Erfassung Funktionaler Gesundheit im Alter - 23 Fragen; Assessing Functional Health in Old Age - 23 questions) questionnaire. Based on an ICF subset developed in a preparatory phase and consensus study, questionnaire items were formulated and tested in a qualitative pretest, followed by a validation study. A workshop with general practitioners (GPs) was held to develop a supplementary manual for GPs on how to interpret the questionnaire results and discuss them with the patients. RESULTS: A total of 69 items were developed and tested in the qualitative pretest with 15 respondents, resulting in 37 items for the validation study. The validation study, involving 237 older adults, showed the presence of one significant principal component. It demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.967) and construct validity, showing positive correlations with established assessment tools. Descriptive statistics showed differences between the means of self-assessment by patients and an external GP assessment. The final EFA23 questionnaire consists of 23 items assessing limitations in functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The EFA23 questionnaire can be used as a valid self-assessment instrument to measure functioning in older adults, supporting a person- and context-centred approach in general practice.