Dataset Information

Reducing unnecessary vitamin testing in general practice: barriers and facilitators according to general practitioners and patients.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

There has been an increase in testing of vitamins in patients in general practice, often based on irrational indications or for non-specific symptoms, causing increasing healthcare expenditures and medicalisation of patients. So far, there is little evidence of effective strategies to reduce this overtesting in general practice. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore the barriers and facilitators for reducing the number of (unnecessary) vitamin D and B₁₂ laboratory tests ordered.

Design and setting

This qualitative study, based on a grounded theory design, used semistructured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) and patients from two primary care networks (147 GPs, 195?000 patients). These networks participated in the Reducing Vitamin Testing in Primary Care Practice (REVERT) study, a clustered randomized trial comparing two de-implementation strategies to reduce test ordering in primary care in the Netherlands.

Participants

Twenty-one GPs, with a maximum of 1 GP per practice who took part in the REVERT study, and 22 patients (who were invited by their GP during vitamin-related consultations) were recruited, from which 20 GPs and 19 patients agreed to participate in this study.

Results

The most important factor hampering vitamin-test reduction programmes is the mismatch between patients and medical professionals regarding the presumed appropriate indications for testing for vitamin D and B₁₂. In contrast, the most important facilitator for vitamin-test reduction may be updating GPs' knowledge about test indications and their awareness of their own testing behaviour.

Conclusion

To achieve a sustainable reduction in vitamin testing, guidelines with clear and uniform recommendations on evidence-based indications for vitamin testing, combined with regular (individual) feedback on test-ordering behaviour, are needed. Moreover, the general public needs access to clear and reliable information on vitamin testing. Further research is required to measure the effect of these strategies on the number of vitamin test requests.

Trial registration number

WAG/mb/16/039555.

SUBMITTER: Hofstede H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6797438 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reducing unnecessary vitamin testing in general practice: barriers and facilitators according to general practitioners and patients.

Hofstede H H van der Burg H A M HAM Mulder B C BC Bohnen A M AM Bindels P J E PJE de Wit N J NJ de Schepper E I T EIT van Vugt S F SF

BMJ open 20191007 10

<h4>Objective</h4>There has been an increase in testing of vitamins in patients in general practice, often based on irrational indications or for non-specific symptoms, causing increasing healthcare expenditures and medicalisation of patients. So far, there is little evidence of effective strategies to reduce this overtesting in general practice. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to explore the barriers and facilitators for reducing the number of (unnecessary) vitamin D and B<sub> ...[more]

PMID: 31594878

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChlamydia is a major public health concern, with high economic and social costs. In 2016, there were over 200,000 chlamydia diagnoses made in England. The highest prevalence rates are found among young people. Although annual testing for sexually active young people is recommended, many do not receive testing. General practice is one ideal setting for testing, yet attempts to increase testing in this setting have been disappointing. The Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model) may help improve understanding of the underpinnings of chlamydia testing. The aim of this systematic review was to (1) identify barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing for young people and primary care practitioners in general practice and (2) map facilitators and barriers onto the COM-B model.MethodsQualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies published after 2000 were included. Seven databases were searched to identify peer-reviewed publications which examined barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data (i.e., participant quotations, theme descriptions, and survey results) regarding study design and key findings were extracted. The data was first analysed using thematic analysis, following this, the resultant factors were mapped onto the COM-B model components. All findings are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.ResultsFour hundred eleven papers were identified; 39 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the patient (e.g., knowledge), provider (e.g., time constraints), and service level (e.g., practice nurses). Factors were categorised into the subcomponents of the model: physical capability (e.g., practice nurse involvement), psychological capability (e.g.: lack of knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs regarding perceived risk), automatic motivation (e.g., embarrassment and shame), physical opportunity (e.g., time constraints), social opportunity (e.g., stigma).ConclusionsThis systematic review provides a synthesis of the literature which acknowledges factors across multiple levels and components. The COM-B model provided the framework for understanding the complexity of chlamydia testing behaviour. While we cannot at this juncture state which component represents the most salient influence on chlamydia testing, across all three levels, multiple barriers and facilitators were identified relating psychological capability and physical and social opportunity. Implementation should focus on (1) normalisation, (2) communication, (3) infection-specific information, and (4) mode of testing. In order to increase chlamydia testing in general practice, a multifaceted theory- and evidence-based approach is needed.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016041786.

Project description:BackgroundThe ubiquity of smartphones and health apps make them a potential self-management tool for patients that could be prescribed by medical professionals. However, little is known about how Australian general practitioners and their patients view the possibility of prescribing mobile health (mHealth) apps as a nondrug intervention.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine barriers and facilitators to prescribing mHealth apps in Australian general practice from the perspective of general practitioners and their patients.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews in Australian general practice settings with purposively sampled general practitioners and patients. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed by two researchers.ResultsInterview participants included 20 general practitioners and 15 adult patients. General practitioners' perceived barriers to prescribing apps included a generational difference in the digital propensity for providers and patients; lack of knowledge of prescribable apps and trustworthy sources to access them; the time commitment required of providers and patients to learn and use the apps; and concerns about privacy, safety, and trustworthiness of health apps. General practitioners perceived facilitators as trustworthy sources to access prescribable apps and information, and younger generation and widespread smartphone ownership. For patients, the main barriers were older age and usability of mHealth apps. Patients were not concerned about privacy and data safety issues regarding health app use. Facilitators for patients included the ubiquity of smartphones and apps, especially for the younger generation and recommendation of apps by doctors. We identified evidence of effectiveness as an independent theme from both the provider and patient perspectives.ConclusionsmHealth app prescription appears to be feasible in general practice. The barriers and facilitators identified by the providers and patients overlapped, though privacy was of less concern to patients. The involvement of health professionals and patients is vital for the successful integration of effective, evidence-based mHealth apps with clinical practice.

Project description:BackgroundAntibiotic resistance is a leading global public health concern and antibiotic use is a key driver. Effective interventions are needed to target key stakeholders, including general practitioners (GPs). In Malta, little is known about factors that influence GPs' antibiotic prescribing, making it challenging to implement targeted interventions. We therefore aimed to explore GPs' understanding of antibiotic use and resistance, and describe their perceived barriers and facilitators to prudent antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections in Malta.MethodsFace-to-face individual semi-structured interviews were held with a quota sample of 20 GPs in 2014. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and later analysed iteratively using manifest and latent content analysis. Findings were collated in a socioecological model to depict how GPs as individuals are embedded within larger social systems and contexts, and how each component within this system impacts their prescribing behaviour.FindingsWe found that GPs' antibiotic prescribing decisions are complex and impacted by numerous barriers and facilitators at the individual, interpersonal, organisational, community, and public policy level. Predominant factors found to impact GPs' antibiotic prescribing included not only intrinsic GP factors such as knowledge, awareness, experience, and misconceptions, but also several external factors. At the interpersonal level, GPs' perceived patient demand and behaviour to be a persistent issue that impacts their prescribing decisions. Similarly, some GPs found pressure from drug reps to be concerning despite being considered an important source of information. Organisational and public policy-level issues such as lack of access to relevant antibiotic prescribing guidelines and current antibiotic resistance data from the community, were also considered major barriers to appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Utilisation of diagnostic testing was found to be low and GPs' perceptions on the introduction of rapid point-of-care tests to support antibiotic prescription decisions, were mixed.ConclusionThis study revealed the complexity of the antibiotic prescribing decision and the numerous barriers and facilitators that impact it, visualised through a socioecological model. Addressing GPs' antibiotic prescribing practices will require targeted and coordinated implementation activities at all levels to change behaviour and address misconceptions, whilst also improving the physical and social environment.Trial registration numberNCT03218930; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03218930.

Project description:BackgroundDespite wide distribution and promotion of clinical practice guidelines, adherence among Dutch general practitioners (GPs) is not optimal. To improve adherence to guidelines, an analysis of barriers to implementation is advocated. Because different recommendations within a guideline can have different barriers, in this study we focus on key recommendations rather than guidelines as a whole, and explore the barriers to implementation perceived by Dutch GPs.MethodsA qualitative study using six focus groups was conducted, in which 30 GPs participated, with an average of seven per session. Fifty-six key recommendations were derived from twelve national guidelines. In each focus group, barriers to the implementation of the key recommendations of two clinical practice guidelines were discussed. Focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Data was analysed by using an existing framework of barriers.ResultsThe barriers varied largely within guidelines, with each key recommendation having a unique pattern of barriers. The most perceived barriers were lack of agreement with the recommendations due to lack of applicability or lack of evidence (68% of key recommendations), environmental factors such as organisational constraints (52%), lack of knowledge regarding the guideline recommendations (46%), and guideline factors such as unclear or ambiguous guideline recommendations (43%).ConclusionOur study findings suggest a broad range of barriers. As the barriers largely differ within guidelines, tailored and barrier-driven implementation strategies focusing on key recommendations are needed to improve adherence in practice. In addition, guidelines should be more transparent concerning the underlying evidence and applicability, and further efforts are needed to address complex issues such as comorbidity in guidelines. Finally, it might be useful to include focus groups in continuing medical education as an innovative medium for guideline education and implementation.

Project description:General dental practitioners (GDPs) regularly prescribe antibiotics to manage dental infections although most infections can be treated successfully by local measures. Published guidance to support GDPs to make appropriate prescribing decisions exists but there continues to be wide variation in dental antibiotic prescribing. An interview study was conducted as part of the Reducing Antibiotic Prescribing in Dentistry (RAPiD) trial to understand the barriers and facilitators of using local measures instead of prescribing antibiotics to manage bacterial infections.Thirty semi-structured one-to-one telephone interviews were conducted using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Responses were coded into domains of the TDF and sub-themes. Priority domains (high frequency: ≥50 % interviewees discussed) relevant to behaviour change were identified as targets for future intervention efforts and mapped onto 'intervention functions' of the Behaviour Change Wheel system.Five domains (behavioural regulation, social influences, reinforcement, environmental context and resources, and beliefs about consequences) with seven sub-themes were identified as targets for future intervention. All participants had knowledge about the evidence-based management of bacterial infections, but they reported difficulties in following this due to patient factors and time management. Lack of time was found to significantly influence their decision processes with regard to performing local measures. Beliefs about their capabilities to overcome patient influence, beliefs that performing local measures would impact on subsequent appointment times as well as there being no incentives for performing local measures were also featured. Though no knowledge or basic skills issues were identified, the participants suggested some continuous professional development programmes (e.g. time management, an overview of published guidance) to address some of the barriers. The domain results suggest a number of intervention functions through which future interventions could change GDPs' antibiotic prescribing for bacterial infections: imparting skills through training, providing an example for GDPs to imitate (i.e. modelling) or creating the expectation of a reward (i.e. incentivisation).This is the first theoretically informed study to identify barriers and facilitators of evidence-based management of patients with bacterial infections among GDPs. A pragmatic approach is needed to address the modifiable barriers in future interventions intended to change dentists' inappropriate prescribing behaviour.

Dataset Information

Reducing unnecessary vitamin testing in general practice: barriers and facilitators according to general practitioners and patients.

Objective

Design and setting

Participants

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration number

Publications

Reducing unnecessary vitamin testing in general practice: barriers and facilitators according to general practitioners and patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure