Physician behaviors to promote informed decisions for prostate cancer screening: a National Research Network study.

Clinical guidelines for prostate cancer screening (PCS) advise physicians to discuss the potential harms and benefits of screening. However, there is a lack of training programs for informed decision-making (IDM), and it is unknown which IDM behaviors physicians have the most difficulty performing. Identifying difficult behaviors can help tailor training programs. In the context of developing a physician-IDM program for PCS, we aimed to describe physicians' use of nine key IDM behaviors for the PCS discussion and to examine the relation between the behaviors and physician characteristics. A cross-sectional sample of The American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network completed surveys about their behavior regarding PCS (N = 246; response rate = 58%). The surveys included nine physician key IDM behaviors for PCS and a single-item question describing their general practice style for PCS. The most common IDM behavior was to invite men to ask questions. The two least common reported behaviors concerned patients uncertain about screening (i.e., arrange follow-up and provide additional information for undecided men). Physicians reported difficulty with these two behaviors regardless whether they reported to discuss or not to discuss PCS with patients. Reported use of key IDM behaviors was associated with a general practice style for PCS and being affiliated with a residency-training program. Physician training programs for IDM should include physician skills to address the needs of patients uncertain about screening. Future research should determine if actual behavior is associated with self-reported behavior for the PCS discussion.

Clinician suspicion of an alcohol problem: an observational study from the AAFP National Research Network.

PURPOSE: In clinical practice, detection of alcohol problems often relies on clinician suspicion instead of using a screening instrument. We assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of clinician suspicion compared with screening-detected alcohol problems in patients. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional study of 94 primary care clinicians' office visits. Brief questionnaires were completed separately after a visit by both clinicians and eligible patients. The patient's anonymous exit questionnaire screened for hazardous drinking based on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C) and for harmful drinking (alcohol abuse or dependence) based on 2 questions from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. After the visit, clinicians responded to the question, "Does this patient have problems with alcohol?" with answer options including "yes, hazardous drinking" and "yes, alcohol abuse or dependence." Analyses assessed the associations between patients' responses to screening questions and clinician's suspicions. RESULTS: Of 2,518 patients with an office visit, 2,173 were eligible, and 1,699 (78%) completed the exit questionnaire. One hundred seventy-one (10.1%) patients had a positive screening test for hazardous drinking (an AUDIT-C score of 5 or greater) and 64 (3.8%) for harmful drinking. Clinicians suspected alcohol problems in 81 patients (hazardous drinking in 37, harmful drinking in 40, and both in 4). The sensitivity of clinician suspicion of either hazardous or harmful drinking was 27% and the specificity was 98%. Positive and negative predictive values were 62% and 92%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Clinician suspicion of alcohol problems had poor sensitivity but high specificity for identifying patients who had a positive screening test for alcohol problems. These data support the routine use of a screening tool to supplement clinicians' suspicions, which already provide reasonable positive predictive value.

Primary care physicians' use of an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening.

PURPOSE: Leading professional organizations acknowledge the importance of an informed decision-making process for prostate cancer screening. We describe primary care physicians' reports of their prescreening discussions about the potential harms and benefits of prostate cancer screening. METHODS: Members of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network responded to a survey that included (1) an indicator of practice styles related to discussing harms and benefits of prostate-specific antigen testing and providing a screening recommendation or letting patients decide, and (2) indicators reflecting physicians' beliefs about prostate cancer screening. The survey was conducted between July 2007 and January 2008. RESULTS: Of 426 physicians 246 (57.7%) completed the survey questionnaire. Compared with physicians who ordered screening without discussion (24.3%), physicians who discussed harms and benefits with patients and then let them decide (47.7%) were more likely to endorse beliefs that scientific evidence does not support screening, that patients should be told about the lack of evidence, and that patients have a right to know the limitations of screening; they were also less likely to endorse the belief that there was no need to educate patients because they wanted to be screened. Concerns about medicolegal risk associated with not screening were more common among physicians who discussed the harms and benefits and recommended screening than among physicians who discussed screening and let their patients decide. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the variability in physicians' use of an informed decision-making process can be attributed to beliefs about screening. Concerns about medicolegal risk remain an important barrier for shared decision making.

Components of family history associated with women's disease perceptions for cancer: a report from the Family Healthware™ Impact Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine the specific components of family history and personal characteristics related to disease perceptions about breast, colon, and ovarian cancers. METHODS: Baseline, cross-sectional data on 2,505 healthy women aged 35-65 years enrolled from 41 primary care practices in the cluster-randomized Family Healthware™ Impact Trial, assessed for detailed family history and perceived risk, perceived severity, worry, and perceived control over getting six common diseases including breast, colon, and ovarian cancers. RESULTS: Participants provided family history information on 41,841 total relatives. We found evidence of underreporting of paternal family history and lower perceived breast cancer risk with cancer in the paternal versus maternal lineage. We observed cancer-specific perceived risks and worry for individual family history elements and also found novel "spillover" effects where a family history of one cancer was associated with altered disease perceptions of another. Having a mother with early-onset breast or ovarian cancer was strongly associated with perceived risk of breast cancer. Age, parenthood, and affected lineage were associated with disease perceptions and ran counter to empiric risks. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding patients' formulation of risk for multiple diseases is important for public health initiatives that seek to inform risk appraisal, influence disease perceptions, or match preventive interventions to existing risk perceptions.

Alcohol and sleep problems in primary care patients: a report from the AAFP National Research Network.

PURPOSE: Hazardous and harmful drinking and sleep problems are common, but their associations among patients seen in primary care have not been examined. We hypothesized that greater levels of alcohol consumption would be associated with several self-reported sleep problems. METHODS: In a cross-sectional survey in primary care practices, 94 participating clinicians recruited up to 30 consecutive adult patients, and both clinicians and patients completed anonymous postvisit questionnaires. Patients were asked questions on demographics, alcohol consumption, cardinal symptoms of alcohol use disorders, sleep quality, insomnia, sleep apnea, and symptoms of restless leg syndrome. Multivariate analyses explored the associations of drinking status (none, moderate, or hazardous) and sleep problems, adjusting for demographics and clustering of patients within physician. RESULTS: Of 1,984 patients who responded, 1,699 (85.6%) provided complete data for analysis. Respondents' mean age was 50.4 years (SD 17.4 years), 67% were women, and 72.9% were white. Of these, 22.3% reported hazardous drinking, 47.8% reported fair or poor overall sleep quality, and 7.3% reported a diagnosis or treatment of sleep apnea. Multivariate analyses showed no associations between drinking status and any measure of insomnia, overall sleep quality, or restless legs syndrome symptoms. Moderate drinking was associated with lower adjusted odds of sleep apnea compared with nondrinkers (OR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-1.00). Using alcohol for sleep was strongly associated with hazardous drinking (OR = 4.58; 95% CI, 2.97-7.08, compared with moderate drinking). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate and hazardous drinking were associated with few sleep problems. Using alcohol for sleep, however, was strongly associated with hazardous drinking relative to moderate drinking and may serve as a prompt for physicians to ask about excessive alcohol use.

Patients' question-asking behavior during primary care visits: a report from the AAFP National Research Network.

PURPOSE: The Ask Me 3 (AM3) health communication program encourages patients to ask specific questions during office visits with the intention of improving understanding of their health conditions and adherence to treatment recommendations. This study evaluated whether implementing AM3 improves patients' question-asking behavior and increases adherence to prescription medications and lifestyle recommendations. METHODS: This randomized trial involved 20 practices from the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network that were assigned to an AM3 intervention group or a control group. Forty-one physicians in the practices were each asked to enroll at least 20 patients. The patients' visits were audio recorded, and recordings were reviewed to determine whether patients asked questions and which questions they asked. Patients were interviewed 1 to 3 weeks after the visit to assess their recall of physicians' recommendations, rates of prescription filling and taking, and attempts at complying with lifestyle recommendations. RESULTS: The study enrolled 834 eligible patients in 20 practices. There were no significant difference between the AM3 and control patients in the rate of asking questions, but this rate was high (92%) in both groups. There also were no differences in rates of either filling or taking prescriptions, although rates of these outcomes were fairly high, too. Control patients were more likely to recall that their physician recommended a lifestyle change, however (68% vs 59%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: In a patient population in which asking questions already occurs at a high rate and levels of adherence are fairly high, we found no evidence that the AM3 intervention results in patients asking specific questions or more questions in general, or in better adherence to prescription medications or lifestyle recommendations.

Representativeness of PBRN physician practice patterns and related beliefs: the case of the AAFP National Research Network.

PURPOSE: We wanted to compare survey responses from members of a national practice-based research network (PBRN) with those of a larger sample of family physicians to assess the generalizability of findings from the PBRN to the larger physician population. METHODS: The American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network (AAFP NRN) conducted 3 separate national surveys among random samples of AAFP active members and physician members of the AAFP NRN. The surveys assessed self-reported clinical behaviors and beliefs related to hepatitis C, hyperlipidemia, and pharyngitis. Bivariate comparisons were conducted to detect statistical differences between the AAFP and AAFP NRN respondents on both demographic and clinically relevant survey items. Multivariate analyses of outcomes were found to be statistically significant at the bivariate level. RESULTS: Response rates to the surveys ranged from 53% to 59% for AAFP members and 60% to 72% for AAFP NRN members. The most consistent differences (P <.05) in demographic comparisons were for percentage of time spent in patient care, practice location, practice type, and census region. Bivariate comparisons found the groups differed on 8 (12%) of 66 clinically relevant survey items, with the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons reducing these items to 4 (6%). These comparisons were followed by multivariate analyses of outcomes that were found statistically significant at bivariate level. CONCLUSIONS: The AAFP NRN and AAFP membership differed on several demographic characteristics, but network members were overall more representative than not of the AAFP active membership in their self-reported clinical behaviors and related beliefs.

Data collection outcomes comparing paper forms with PDA forms in an office-based patient survey.

PURPOSE: We compared the completeness of data collection using paper forms and using electronic forms loaded on handheld computers in an office-based patient interview survey conducted within the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network. METHODS: We asked 19 medical assistants and nurses in family practices to administer a survey about pneumococcal immunizations to 60 older adults each, 30 using paper forms and 30 using electronic forms on handheld computers. By random assignment, the interviewers used either the paper or electronic form first. Using multilevel analyses adjusted for patient characteristics and clustering of forms by practice, we analyzed the completeness of the data. RESULTS: A total of 1,003 of the expected 1,140 forms were returned to the data center. The overall return rate was better for paper forms (537 of 570, 94%) than for electronic forms (466 of 570, 82%) because of technical difficulties experienced with electronic data collection and stolen or lost handheld computers. Errors of omission on the returned forms, however, were more common using paper forms. Of the returned forms, only 3% of those gathered electronically had errors of omission, compared with 35% of those gathered on paper. Similarly, only 0.04% of total survey items were missing on the electronic forms, compared with 3.5% of the survey items using paper forms. CONCLUSIONS: Although handheld computers produced more complete data than the paper method for the returned forms, they were not superior because of the large amount of missing data due to technical difficulties with the hand-held computers or loss or theft. Other hardware solutions, such as tablet computers or cell phones linked via a wireless network directly to a Web site, may be better electronic solutions for the future.

Describing primary care encounters: the Primary Care Network Survey and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to describe clinical encounters in primary care research networks and compare them with those of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS). METHODS: Twenty US primary care research networks collected data on clinicians and patient encounters using the Primary Care Network Survey (PRINS) Clinician Interview (PRINS-1) and Patient Record (PRINS-2), which were newly developed based on NAMCS tools. Clinicians completed a PRINS-1 about themselves and a PRINS-2 for each of 30 patient visits. Data included patient characteristics; reason for the visit, diagnoses, and services ordered or performed. We compared PRINS data with data obtained from primary care physicians during 5 cycles of NAMCS (1997-2001). Data were weighted; PRINS reflects participating networks and NAMCS provides national estimates. RESULTS: By discipline, 89% of PRINS clinicians were physicians, 4% were physicians in residency training, 5% were advanced practice nurses/nurse-practitioners, and 2% were physician's assistants. The majority (53%) specialized in pediatrics (34% specialized in family medicine, 9% in internal medicine, and 4% in other specialties). All NAMCS clinicians were physicians, with 20% specializing in pediatrics. When NAMCS and PRINS visits were compared, larger proportions of PRINS visits involved preventive care and were made by children, members of minority racial groups, and individuals who did not have private health insurance. A diagnostic or other assessment service was performed for 99% of PRINS visits and 76% of NAMCS visits (95% confidence interval, 74.9%-78.0%). A preventive or counseling/education service was provided at 64% of PRINS visits and 37% of NAMCS visits (95% confidence interval, 35.1%-38.0%). CONCLUSIONS: PRINS presents a view of diverse primary care visits and differs from NAMCS in its methods and findings. Further examinations of PRINS data are needed to assess their usefulness for describing encounters that occur in primary care research networks.

Management of type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting: a practice-based research network study.

PURPOSE: We wanted to describe how primary care clinicians care for patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: We undertook a cross-sectional study of 95 primary care clinicians and 822 of their established patients with type 2 diabetes from 4 practice-based, primary care research networks in the United States. Clinicians were surveyed about their training and practice. Patients completed a self-administered questionnaire about their care, and medical records were reviewed for complications, treatment, and diabetes-control indicators. RESULTS: Participating clinicians (average age, 45.7 years) saw an average of 32.6 adult patients with diabetes per month. Patients (average age, 59.7 years) reported a mean duration of diabetes of 9.1 years, with 34.3% having had the disease more than 10 years. Nearly one half (47.5%) of the patients had at least 1 diabetes-related complication, and 60.8% reported a body mass index greater than 30. Mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level was 7.6% (SD 1.73), and 40.5% of patients had values <7%. Only 35.3% of patients had adequate blood pressure control (<130/85 mm Hg), and only 43.7% had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels <100 mg/dL. Only 7.0% of patients met all 3 control targets. Multilevel models showed that patient ethnicity, practice type, involvement of midlevel clinicians, and treatment were associated with HbA1c level; patient age, education level, and practice type were associated with blood pressure control; and patient ethnicity was associated with LDL-C control. CONCLUSIONS: Only modest numbers of patients achieve established targets of diabetes control. Reengineering primary care practice may be necessary to substantially improve care.

Hepatitis C identification and management by family physicians.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many people with hepatitis C receive all or most of their care from primary care physicians, yet little information exists about the practice patterns, knowledge, and beliefs and attitudes of family physicians related to hepatitis C. METHODS: We mailed a written survey to a random sample of active members of the American Academy of Family Physicians. RESULTS: Nearly all respondents (94%) reported at least one patient with hepatitis C in their practice, and 66% had diagnosed at least one new case of hepatitis C in the past year. While most respondents (85%) correctly identified common hepatitis C risk factors, only 63% reported routinely asking patients about those risk factors. Respondents (74%) preferred to involve specialists in the care of hepatitis C patients, but half (50%) reported barriers to referral. A small number (5%) of respondents have prescribed antiviral medication within the past year. Most respondents think family physicians should screen (94%), diagnose (98%), and provide general care (69%) for hepatitis C patients. CONCLUSIONS: Family physicians know how to identify high-risk people and test for hepatitis C. Most prefer to refer patients with hepatitis C to specialists for workup and treatment but report frequent barriers to those referrals.

On the front lines: family physicians' preparedness for bioterrorism.

OBJECTIVE: The events of September 11, 2001, and the nation's recent experience with anthrax assaults made bioterrorism preparedness a national priority. Because primary care physicians are among the sentinel responders to bioterrorist attacks, we sought to determine family physicians' beliefs about their preparedness for such an attack. STUDY DESIGN: In October 2001 we conducted a national survey of 976 family physicians randomly selected from the American Academy of Family Physicians' active membership directory. POPULATION: 614 (63%) family physicians responded to the survey. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Physicians' self-reported ability to "know what to do as a doctor in the event of a suspected bioterrorist attack, recognize signs and symptoms of an illness due to bioterrorism, and know where to call to report a suspected bioterrorist attack." RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of physicians agreed that a bioterrorist attack is a real threat within the United States. However, only 27% of family physicians believed that the US health care system could respond effectively to a bioterrorist attack; fewer (17%) thought that their local medical communities could respond effectively. Twenty-six percent of physicians reported that they would know what to do as a doctor in the event of a bioterrorist attack. Only 18% had previous training in bioterrorism preparedness. In a multivariate analysis, physicians reported that preparedness for a bioterrorist attack was significantly associated with previous bioterrorism preparedness training (OR 3.9 [95% CI 2.4-6.3]) and knowing how to obtain information in the event of a bioterrorist attack (OR 6.4 [95% CI 3.9-10.6]). CONCLUSIONS: Only one quarter of family physicians felt prepared to respond to a bioterrorist event. However, training in bioterrorism preparedness was significantly associated with physicians' perceived ability to respond effectively to an attack. Primary care physicians need more training in bioterrorism preparedness and easy access to public health and medical information in the event of a bioterrorist attack.

Practice patterns, beliefs, and perceived barriers to care regarding dementia: a report from the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) national research network.

PURPOSE: Given the increasing age of the US population, understanding how primary care is delivered surrounding dementia and physicians' perceived barriers and needs associated with this care is essential. METHODS: A 29-item questionnaire was developed by project investigators and family physician consultants and mailed to a random sample of 1500 US members of the American Academy of Family Physicians in 2008; 2 follow-up mailings were sent to nonrespondents. Physicians were queried about sociodemographic characteristics, practice patterns, and beliefs (including challenges, barriers, and needs) about care processes focusing on dementia among older patients. RESULTS: The response rate was 60%, with respondents statistically comparable (P > .05) to the American Academy of Family Physicians physician population. Among physicians, 93% screen and/or conduct diagnostic evaluations for dementia in older patients, whereas 91% provide ongoing primary care for patients with dementia whether or not they screen for or diagnose dementia. Forty percent of physicians refer some patients with suspected dementia to other providers (primarily neurologists) to verify diagnosis, for comanagement, or both. Factors affecting the diagnosis of dementia and the delivery of dementia care included patient behavior challenges (aggressiveness, restlessness, paranoia, wandering); comorbidities (falls, delirium, adverse medication reactions, urinary incontinence); caregiver challenges (fatigue, planning for patient's institutional placement, anger); and structural barriers (clinician time, time required for screening, limited treatment options). Tools needed to provide enhanced dementia care included better assessment tools, community resources, and diagnostic and screening tools. CONCLUSION: Family physicians are highly involved in the assessment and routine care of patients with suspected dementia or diagnosed with dementia, although a relative few are not. This is despite the recognized challenges physicians encounter in the assessment and care processes.

Do professional development programs for Maintenance of Certification (MOC) affect quality of patient care?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between physicians' completion of American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) modules and the quality of medical care delivered. METHODS: Physicians from the Electronic National Quality Improvement and Research Network (eNQUIRENet) were enrolled. Data from their electronic health records were compared before and after they completed one or more MOC modules for family physicians (Self-Assessment Module [Part II MOC] and Performance in Practice Module [Part IV MOC]; SAM/PPM). Process data and other quantitative clinical measures for all adult patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes were gathered from each study physician. General linear mixed effects models were used to analyze data before and after the MOC modules, adjusting for clustering of patients within physicians. RESULTS: Physicians participating in SAM/PPM activities demonstrated greater improvements over time in 11 of 24 measures in process and intermediate outcome measures related to type 2 diabetes care compared with non-SAM/PPM participants. All groups demonstrated improvements over time. CONCLUSION: Participation in SAM/PPM activities is associated with greater improvements in care, but the association between activity undertaken and specific improvements is difficult to demonstrate.

Physician-patient communication about dietary supplements.

OBJECTIVE: Describe the content and frequency of provider-patient dietary supplement discussions during primary care office visits. METHODS: Inductive content analysis of 1477 transcribed audio-recorded office visits to 102 primary care providers was combined with patient and provider surveys. Encounters were collected in Los Angeles, CA (2009-2010), geographically diverse practice settings across the United States (2004-2005), and Sacramento, CA (1998-1999). RESULTS: Providers discussed 738 dietary supplements during encounters with 357 patients (24.2% of all encounters in the data). They mentioned: (1) reason for taking the supplement for 46.5% of dietary supplements; (2) how to take the supplement for 28.2%; (3) potential risks for 17.3%; (4) supplement effectiveness for 16.7%; and (5) supplement cost or affordability for 4.2%. Of these five topics, a mean of 1.13 (SD=1.2) topics were discussed for each supplement. More topics were reviewed for non-vitamin non-mineral supplements (mean 1.47 (SD=1.2)) than for vitamin/mineral supplements (mean 0.99 (SD=1.1); p<0.001). CONCLUSION: While discussions about supplements are occurring, it is clear that more discussion might be needed to inform patient decisions about supplement use. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Physicians could more frequently address topics that may influence patient dietary supplement use, such as the risks, effectiveness, and costs of supplements.

Familial risk for common diseases in primary care: the Family Healthware Impact Trial.

CONTEXT: Family history is a risk factor for many common chronic diseases, yet it remains underutilized in primary care practice. BACKGROUND: Family Healthware is a self-administered, web-based tool that assesses familial risk for CHD; stroke; diabetes; and colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer, and provides a personalized prevention plan based on familial risk. The Family Healthware Impact Trial evaluated the tool. DESIGN: In this cluster RCT, participants completed baseline and 6-month follow-up surveys. The intervention group used Family Healthware directly after the baseline survey. Controls used the tool after completing the follow-up survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 35-65 years with no known diagnosis of these six diseases were enrolled from 41 primary care practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The prevalence of family-history-based risk for coronary heart disease (CHD); stroke; diabetes; and colorectal, breast, and ovarian cancer was determined in a primary care population. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2007, 3786 participants enrolled. Data analysis was undertaken from September 2007 to March 2008. Participants had a mean age of 50.6 years and were primarily white (91%) women (70%). Of the 3585 participants who completed the risk assessment tool, 82% had a strong or moderate familial risk for at least one of the diseases: CHD (strong=33%, moderate=26%); stroke (strong=15%, moderate=34%); diabetes (strong=11%, moderate=26%); colorectal cancer (strong=3%, moderate=11%); breast cancer (strong=10%, moderate=12%); and ovarian cancer (strong=4%, moderate=6%). Women had a significantly (p<0.04) higher familial risk than men for all diseases except colorectal and ovarian cancer. Overweight participants were significantly (p

Evaluating conflicts of interest in research presented in CME venues.

INTRODUCTION: There is much in the literature regarding the potential for commercial bias in clinical research and in continuing medical education (CME), but no studies were found regarding the potential for bias in reporting original research in CME venues. This pilot study investigated the presence of perceived bias in oral and print content of research findings presented in certified CME activities. METHODS: Research presentations at two national primary care CME activities, where authors had self-reported potential conflicts of interest, were peer reviewed and monitored for perceived commercial bias. Blinded and unblinded peer reviewers' and monitors' analyses of bias were compared to assess whether knowledge of potential conflicts of interest affected perceptions of bias. RESULTS: Knowledge of potential conflicts of interest appeared to increase awareness of potential commercial bias with regard to use of a single product in care and assurance that there was reasonable evidence to support the practice recommendation. A perception of the presenter's strong opinion regarding care did not appear to be influenced by knowledge of a potential conflict of interest. DISCUSSION: While limited, by study design, this research detected subjectivity and variability in perceiving commercial bias within research findings presented in CME venues. Further study of these questions is required to guide the resolution of conflicts of interest in research and CME.

Clinicians' management of children and adolescents with acute pharyngitis.

OBJECTIVE: Sore throat is a common complaint in children and adolescents. With increasing antimicrobial resistance because of antimicrobial overuse, accurate diagnosis is imperative. Appropriate management of acute pharyngitis depends on proper use and interpretation of clinical findings, rapid antigen-detection tests, and throat cultures. We surveyed pediatricians and family physicians to evaluate their management strategies for children and adolescents with acute pharyngitis and to assess the availability and use of diagnostic tests in office practice. METHODS: In 2004, surveys were mailed to a random sample of 1000 pediatrician members of the American Academy of Pediatrics and 1000 family physician members of the American Academy of Family Physicians. We assessed factors associated with physicians using an appropriate management strategy for treating acute pharyngitis. RESULTS: Of 948 eligible responses, 42% of physicians would start antimicrobials before knowing diagnostic test results and continue them despite negative results, with 27% doing this often or always. When presented with clinical scenarios of patients with acute pharyngitis, < or =23% chose an empirical approach, 32% used an inappropriate strategy for a child with pharyngitis suggestive of group A Streptococcus, and 81% used an inappropriate strategy for a child with findings consistent with viral pharyngitis. Plating cultures in the office was associated with an appropriate management strategy, although not statistically significant. Solo/2-person practice and rural location were both independent factors predicting inappropriate strategies. CONCLUSIONS: There is much room for improvement in the management of acute pharyngitis in children and adolescents. Most physicians use appropriate management strategies; however, a substantial number uses inappropriate ones, particularly for children with likely viral pharyngitis. Efforts to help physicians improve practices will need to be multifaceted and should include health policy and educational approaches.

Family physician's knowledge, beliefs, and self-reported practice patterns regarding hyperlipidemia: a National Research Network (NRN) survey.

OBJECTIVE: Family physicians have the potential to make a major impact on reducing the burden of cardiovascular disease through the optimal assessment and management of hyperlipidemia. We were interested in assessing the knowledge, beliefs, and self-reported practice patterns of a representative sample of family physicians regarding the assessment and management of hyperlipidemia 2 years after the release of the evidence-based National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines. METHODS: A 33-item survey was mailed to a random sample (N = 1200) of members of the American Academy of Family Physicians in April of 2004, with 2 follow-up mailings to nonresponders. Physicians were queried about sociodemographic characteristics, their knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported practice patterns regarding the assessment and management of hyperlipidemia. Four case scenarios also were presented. RESULTS: Response rate was 58%. Over 90% of surveyed family physicians screened adults for hyperlipidemia as part of a cardiovascular disease prevention strategy. Most (89%) did this screening by themselves without the support of office staff, and 36% reported routine use of a flow sheet. Most had heard of the ATP III guidelines (85%), but only 13% had read them carefully. Only 17% of respondents used a coronary heart disease (CHD) risk calculator usually or always. Over 90% of those responding reported using low-density lipoprotein (LDL) as the treatment goal but only 76% reported using non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol as a secondary goal of therapy. CONCLUSION: We found a large variability in knowledge, beliefs, and practice patterns among practicing family physicians. We found general agreement on universal screening of adults for hyperlipidemia as part of cardiovascular disease prevention strategy and use of LDL cholesterol as a treatment goal. Many other aspects of the NCEP ATP III guidelines, such as use of a systematic, multidisciplinary approach, using non-HDL cholesterol as a secondary goal, routinely using a CHD risk calculator for risk assessment to guide cholesterol management, have not yet penetrated into self-reported clinical practice.

Comfortably engaging: which approach to alcohol screening should we use?

PURPOSE: We wanted to compare 2 screening instruments for problem drinking, the CAGE and a single question, assessing frequency of use, patient and clinician comfort, and patient engagement in change. METHODS: The study was a crossover, cluster-randomized clinical trial with 31 clinicians in Missouri and 13 in the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) National Network for Family Practice and Primary Care Research; 2,800 patients provided data. The clinician was the unit of randomization. Clinicians decided whether to screen each patient; if they chose to screen, they used the screening approach assigned for that block of patients. The clinician and patient separately completed questionnaires immediately after the office visit to assess each one's comfort with screening (and any ensuing discussion) and the patient's engagement in change. RESULTS: Missouri clinicians screened more patients when assigned the single question (81%) than the CAGE (69%, P = .001 in weighted analysis). There was no difference among AAFP network clinicians (96% of patients screened with the CAGE, 97% with the single question). Eighty percent to 90% of clinicians and 70% of patients reported being comfortable with screening and the ensuing discussion, with no difference between approaches in either network. About one third of patients who were identified as problem drinkers reported thinking about or planning to change their drinking behavior, with no difference in engagement between screening approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients reported similar comfort with the CAGE questions and the single-question screening tools for problem drinking, and the 2 instruments were equal in their ability to engage the patient. In Missouri, the single question was more likely to be used.