Dataset Information

A cross-sectional study examining Australian general practitioners' identification of overweight and obese patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Overweight and obese patients attempt weight loss when advised to do so by their physicians; however, only a small proportion of these patients report receiving such advice. One reason may be that physicians do not identify their overweight and obese patients.

Objectives

We aimed to determine the extent that Australian general practitioners (GP) recognise overweight or obesity in their patients, and to explore patient and GP characteristics associated with non-detection of overweight and obesity.

Methods

Consenting adult patients (n?=?1,111) reported weight, height, demographics and health conditions using a touchscreen computer. GPs (n?=?51) completed hard-copy questionnaires indicating whether their patients were overweight or obese. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for GP detection, using patient self-reported weight and height as the criterion measure for overweight and obesity. For a subsample of patients (n?=?107), we did a sensitivity analysis with patient-measured weight and height. We conducted an adjusted, multivariable logistic regression to explore characteristics associated with non-detection, using random effects to adjust for correlation within GPs.

Results

Sensitivity for GP assessment was 63 % [95 % CI 57-69 %], specificity 89 % [95 % CI 85-92 %], PPV 87 % [95 % CI 83-90 %] and NPV 69 % [95 % CI 65-72 %]. Sensitivity increased by 3 % and specificity was unchanged in the sensitivity analysis. Men (OR: 1.7 [95 % CI 1.1-2.7]), patients without high blood pressure (OR: 1.8 [95 % CI 1.2-2.8]) and without type 2 diabetes (OR: 2.4 [95 % CI 1.2-8.0]) had higher odds of non-detection. Individuals with obesity (OR: 0.1 [95 % CI 0.07-0.2]) or diploma-level education (OR: 0.3 [95%CI 0.1-0.6]) had lower odds of not being identified. No GP characteristics were associated with non-detection of overweight or obesity.

Conclusions

GPs missed identifying a substantial proportion of overweight and obese patients. Strategies to support GPs in identifying their overweight or obese patients need to be implemented.

SUBMITTER: Yoong SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3912305 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A cross-sectional study examining Australian general practitioners' identification of overweight and obese patients.

Yoong Sze Lin SL Carey Mariko Leanne ML Sanson-Fisher Robert William RW D'Este Catherine Anne CA Mackenzie Lisa L Boyes Allison A

Journal of general internal medicine 20131008 2

<h4>Background</h4>Overweight and obese patients attempt weight loss when advised to do so by their physicians; however, only a small proportion of these patients report receiving such advice. One reason may be that physicians do not identify their overweight and obese patients.<h4>Objectives</h4>We aimed to determine the extent that Australian general practitioners (GP) recognise overweight or obesity in their patients, and to explore patient and GP characteristics associated with non-detection ...[more]

PMID: 24101533

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesPrevalence estimates of multimorbidity vary widely due to inconsistent definitions and measurement methods. This study examines the independent effects on prevalence estimates of how 'disease entity' is defined-as a single chronic condition or chapters/domains in the International Classification of Primary Care (V.2; ICPC-2), International Classification of Disease (10th revision; ICD-10) or the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), the number of disease entities required for multimorbidity, and the number of chronic conditions studied.DesignNational prospective cross-sectional study.SettingAustralian general practice.Participants8707 random consenting deidentified patient encounters with 290 randomly selected general practitioners.Main outcome measuresPrevalence estimates of multimorbidity using different definitions.ResultsData classified to ICPC-2 chapters, ICD-10 chapters or CIRS domains produce similar multimorbidity prevalence estimates. When multimorbidity was defined as two or more (2+) disease entities: counting individual chronic conditions and groups of chronic conditions produced similar estimates; the 12 most prevalent chronic conditions identified about 80% of those identified using all chronic conditions. When multimorbidity was defined as 3+ disease entities: counting individual chronic conditions produced significantly higher estimates than counting groups of chronic conditions; the 12 most prevalent chronic conditions identified only two-thirds of patients identified using all chronic conditions.ConclusionsMultimorbidity defined as 2+ disease entities can be measured using different definitions of disease entity with as few as 12 prevalent chronic conditions, but lacks specificity to be useful, especially in older people. Multimorbidity, defined as 3+, requires more measurement conformity and inclusion of all chronic conditions, but provides greater specificity than the 2+ definition. The proposed concept of "complex multimorbidity", the co-occurrence of three or more chronic conditions affecting three or more different body systems within one person without defining an index chronic condition, may be useful in identifying high-need individuals.

Project description:ObjectivesTo support patients in their disease management, providing information that is adjusted to patients' knowledge and ability to process health information (ie, health literacy) is crucial. To ensure effective health communication, general practitioners (GPs) should be able to identify people with limited health literacy. To this end, (dis)agreement between patients' health literacy and GPs' estimations thereof was examined. Also, characteristics impacting health literacy (dis)agreement were studied.DesignCross-sectional survey of general practice patients and GPs undertaken in 2016-17.SettingForty-one general practices in two Dutch-speaking provinces in Belgium.ParticipantsPatients (18 years of age and older) visiting general practices. Patients were excluded when having severe impairments (physical, mental, sensory).Main outcome measuresPatients' health literacy was assessed with 16-item European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire. GPs indicated estimations on patients' health literacy using a simple scale (inadequate; problematic; adequate). (Dis)agreement between patients' health literacy and GPs' estimations thereof (GPs' estimations being equal to/higher/lower than patients' health literacy) was measured using Kappa statistics. The impact of patient and GP characteristics, including duration of GP-patient relationships, on this (dis)agreement was examined using generalised linear logit model.ResultsHealth literacy of patients (n=1375) was inadequate (n=201; 14.6%), problematic (n=299; 21.7%), adequate (n=875; 63.6%). GPs overestimated the proportion patients with adequate health literacy: adequate (n=1241; 90.3%), problematic (n=130; 9.5%) and inadequate (n=4; 0.3%). Overall, GPs' correct; over-/underestimations of health literacy occurred for, respectively, 60.9%; 34.2%; 4.9% patients, resulting in a slight agreement (?=0.033). The likelihood for GPs to over-/underestimate patients' health literacy increases with decreasing educational level of patients; and decreasing number of years patients have been consulting with their GP.ConclusionsIntuitively assessing health literacy is difficult. Patients' education, the duration of GP-patient relationships and GPs' gender impact GPs' perceptions of patients' health literacy.

Project description:BackgroundJob satisfaction of general practitioners (GPs) is important because of the consequences of low satisfaction for GPs, their patients and the health system, such as higher turnover, health problems for the physicians themselves, less satisfied patients, poor clinical outcomes and suboptimal health care delivery. In this study, we aim to explain differences in the job satisfaction of GPs within and between countries.MethodsWe performed a secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data, collected between 2010 and 2012 on 7379 GPs in 34 (mostly European) countries, as well as data on country and health system characteristics from public databases. Job satisfaction is measured through a composite score of six items about self-reported job experience. Operationalisation of the theoretical constructs includes variables, such as the range of services GPs provide, working hours, employment status, and feedback from colleagues. Data were analysed using linear multilevel regression analysis, with countries and GPs as levels. We developed hypotheses on the basis of the Social Production Function Theory, assuming that GPs 'produce' job satisfaction through stimulating work that provides a certain level of comfort, adds to their social status and provides behavioural confirmation.ResultsJob satisfaction varies between GPs and countries, with high satisfaction in Denmark and Canada (on average 2.97 and 2.77 on a scale from 1-4, respectively) and low job satisfaction in Spain (mean 2.15) and Hungary (mean 2.17). One-third of the total variance is situated on the country level, indicating large differences between countries, and countries with a higher GDP per capita have more satisfied GPs. Health system characteristics are not related to GP job satisfaction. At the GP and practice level, performing technical procedures and providing preventive care, feedback from colleagues, and patient satisfaction are positively related to GP job satisfaction and working more hours is negatively related GP job satisfaction.ConclusionOverall and in terms of our theoretical approach, we found that GPs are able to 'produce' work-related well-being through activities and resources related to stimulation, comfort and behavioural confirmation, but not to status.

Dataset Information

A cross-sectional study examining Australian general practitioners' identification of overweight and obese patients.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A cross-sectional study examining Australian general practitioners' identification of overweight and obese patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets