Dataset Information

Exploring factors improving support for vaccinations among Polish primary care physicians.

ABSTRACT: In Poland, primary care physicians are the most used and most trusted source of information on immunisation. We aimed to explore factors influencing support for vaccinations among physicians employed in the childhood immunisation programme, in order to inform education of healthcare workers and programme organization. In June-July 2017, we carried out a national cross-sectional survey of physicians working in randomly selected primary healthcare practices, and interviewed them by telephone. We assessed support for vaccinations using an ordinal scale (0-6) comprised of three equally weighted questions on the respondent support of the programme and vaccination of self and family. We also created a scale (0-3) based on correct answers to vaccination myths. We used ordered logistic regression to investigate factors independently influencing support for vaccinations, reporting the proportional odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for one unit increase in the support score. Of 2,609 respondents contacted, we interviewed 500 (19%). The median vaccination support score (0-6) was 5 (IQR 2). After adjusting for other variables, we did not find significant effects of sex, medical specialty, adhering to recommendations, attending a conference in previous year, using non-scientific sources of information and self-assessed knowledge on vaccination support score. Age over 60 years, correctly addressing vaccination myths and use of one or more than one scientific sources of knowledge, significantly improved support for vaccinations (aOR = 1.97, 1.57, 3.09 and 2.68, respectively). We recommend to increase the amount, quality and accessibility of evidence-based educational materials for primary care physicians working with childhood immunisations.

SUBMITTER: Stefanoff P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7194393 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploring factors improving support for vaccinations among Polish primary care physicians.

Stefanoff Pawel P Sobierajski Tomasz T Bulinska-Stangrecka Helena H Augustynowicz Ewa E

PloS one 20200501 5

In Poland, primary care physicians are the most used and most trusted source of information on immunisation. We aimed to explore factors influencing support for vaccinations among physicians employed in the childhood immunisation programme, in order to inform education of healthcare workers and programme organization. In June-July 2017, we carried out a national cross-sectional survey of physicians working in randomly selected primary healthcare practices, and interviewed them by telephone. We a ...[more]

PMID: 32357190

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundType 2 diabetes can be prevented through lifestyle programs like the Diabetes Prevention Programs (DPP), but few people with prediabetes participate in them, in part because their insurance does not reliably cover DPPs. Prior studies have not focused on payor-level barriers.ObjectiveTo understand barriers to DPP uptake that exist and intersect at different levels (patients, PCPs, and payors) to inform strategies to improve diabetes prevention in primary care settings through interviews with PCPs and payors.DesignFrom May 2020 to October 2021, we conducted remote, semi-structured interviews with PCPs and payors.ParticipantsPCPs were from primary care practices affiliated with one mid-Atlantic academic system. Payor leaders were from regional commercial, Medicare, and Medicaid plans.ApproachUsing a standardized interview guide focused on barriers, facilitators, and potential intervention components, interviews were audio-recorded using Zoom and professionally transcribed. Two reviewers double-coded transcripts using the framework analytic approach.Key resultsWe interviewed 16 PCPs from 13 primary care clinics and 7 payor leaders representing 6 insurance plans. Two themes emerged from PCP reports of patient-level barriers: (1) lack of programs and insurance coverage of resources to address nutrition and exercise and (2) inadequate resources to address social determinants of health that impact diabetes prevention. Among barriers PCPs faced, we identified two themes: (1) low PCP knowledge about DPPs and misperceptions of insurance coverage of DPPs and (2) inadequate clinical staff to address diabetes prevention. Barriers common to PCPs and payors included (1) absence of prediabetes quality measures and (2) inadequate engagement of PCPs and patients with payors.ConclusionsDiscussions with PCPs and payors revealed systemic barriers that suggest important priorities to improve prediabetes clinical care, including universal coverage of DPPs, clarity about coverage benefits, data reporting and outreach by payors to PCPs, and adoption of appropriate prediabetes quality measures.

Project description:BackgroundContinuous Quality Improvement is a process for raising the quality of primary health care (PHC) across Indigenous PHC services. In addition to clinical auditing using plan, do, study, and act cycles, engaging staff in a process of reflecting on systems to support quality care is vital. The One21seventy Systems Assessment Tool (SAT) supports staff to assess systems performance in terms of five key components. This study examines quantitative and qualitative SAT data from five high-improving Indigenous PHC services in northern Australia to understand the systems used to support quality care.MethodsHigh-improving services selected for the study were determined by calculating quality of care indices for Indigenous health services participating in the Audit and Best Practice in Chronic Disease National Research Partnership. Services that reported continuing high improvement in quality of care delivered across two or more audit tools in three or more audits were selected for the study. Precollected SAT data (from annual team SAT meetings) are presented longitudinally using radar plots for quantitative scores for each component, and content analysis is used to describe strengths and weaknesses of performance in each systems' component.ResultsHigh-improving services were able to demonstrate strong processes for assessing system performance and consistent improvement in systems to support quality care across components. Key strengths in the quality support systems included adequate and orientated workforce, appropriate health system supports, and engagement with other organizations and community, while the weaknesses included lack of service infrastructure, recruitment, retention, and support for staff and additional costs. Qualitative data revealed clear voices from health service staff expressing concerns with performance, and subsequent SAT data provided evidence of changes made to address concerns.ConclusionLearning from the processes and strengths of high-improving services may be useful as we work with services striving to improve the quality of care provided in other areas.

Project description:Dermatological conditions are a relevant health problem. Machine learning (ML) models are increasingly being applied to dermatology as a diagnostic decision support tool using image analysis, especially for skin cancer detection and disease classification. The objective of this study was to perform a prospective validation of an image analysis ML model, which is capable of screening 44 skin diseases, comparing its diagnostic accuracy with that of General Practitioners (GPs) and teledermatology (TD) dermatologists in a real-life setting. Prospective, diagnostic accuracy study including 100 consecutive patients with a skin problem who visited a participating GP in central Catalonia, Spain, between June 2021 and October 2021. The skin issue was first assessed by the GPs. Then an anonymised skin disease picture was taken and uploaded to the ML application, which returned a list with the Top-5 possible diagnosis in order of probability. The same image was then sent to a dermatologist via TD for diagnosis, as per clinical practice. The GPs Top-3, ML model's Top-5 and dermatologist's Top-3 assessments were compared to calculate the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of the ML models. The overall Top-1 accuracy of the ML model (39%) was lower than that of GPs (64%) and dermatologists (72%). When the analysis was limited to the diagnoses on which the algorithm had been explicitly trained (n = 82), the balanced Top-1 accuracy of the ML model increased (48%) and in the Top-3 (75%) was comparable to the GPs Top-3 accuracy (76%). The Top-5 accuracy of the ML model (89%) was comparable to the dermatologist Top-3 accuracy (90%). For the different diseases, the sensitivity of the model (Top-3 87% and Top-5 96%) is higher than that of the clinicians (Top-3 GPs 76% and Top-3 dermatologists 84%) only in the benign tumour pathology group, being on the other hand the most prevalent category (n = 53). About the satisfaction of professionals, 92% of the GPs considered it as a useful diagnostic support tool (DST) for the differential diagnosis and in 60% of the cases as an aid in the final diagnosis of the skin lesion. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the model in this study, under real-life conditions, is lower than that of both GPs and dermatologists. This result aligns with the findings of few existing prospective studies conducted under real-life conditions. The outcomes emphasize the significance of involving clinicians in the training of the model and the capability of ML models to assist GPs, particularly in differential diagnosis. Nevertheless, external testing in real-life conditions is crucial for data validation and regulation of these AI diagnostic models before they can be used in primary care.

Project description:BackgroundSince 2000, Israel has had a national program for ongoing monitoring of the quality of the primary care services provided by the country's four competing non-profit health plans. Previous research has demonstrated that quality of care has improved substantially since the program's inception and that the program enjoys wide support among health plan managers. However, prior to this study there were anecdotal and journalistic reports of opposition to the program among primary care physicians engaged in direct service delivery; these raised serious questions about the extent of support among physicians nationally.GoalsTo assess how Israeli primary care physicians experience and rate health plan efforts to track and improve the quality of care.MethodThe study population consisted of primary care physicians employed by the health plans who have responsibility for the quality of care of a panel of adult patients. The study team randomly sampled 250 primary-care physicians from each of the four health plans. Of the 1,000 physicians sampled, 884 met the study criteria. Every physician could choose whether to participate in the survey by mail, e-mail, or telephone. The anonymous questionnaire was completed by 605 physicians - 69% of those eligible. The data were weighted to reflect differences in sampling and response rates across health plans.Main findingsThe vast majority of respondents (87%) felt that the monitoring of quality was important and two-thirds (66%) felt that the feedback and subsequent remedial interventions improved medical care to a great extent. Almost three-quarters (71%) supported continuation of the program in an unqualified manner. The physicians with the most positive attitudes to the program were over age 44, independent contract physicians, and either board-certified in internal medicine or without any board-certification (i.e., residents or general practitioners). At the same time, support for the program was widespread even among physicians who are young, board-certified in family medicine, and salaried.Many physicians also reported that various problems had emerged to a great or very great extent: a heavier workload (65%), over-competitiveness (60%), excessive managerial pressure (48%), and distraction from other clinical issues (35%). In addition, there was some criticism of the quality of the measures themselves. Respondents also identified approaches to addressing these problems.ConclusionsThe findings provide perspective on the anecdotal reports of physician opposition to the monitoring program; they may well accurately reflect the views of the small number of physicians directly involved, but they do not reflect the views of primary care physicians as a whole, who are generally quite supportive of the program. At the same time, the study confirms the existence of several perceived problems. Some of these problems, such as excess managerial pressure, can probably best be addressed by the health plans themselves; while others, such as the need to refine the quality indicators, are probably best addressed at the national level. Cooperation between primary care physicians and health plan managers, which has been an essential component of the program's success thus far, can also play an important role in addressing the problems identified.

Project description:ImportancePrimary care physicians (PCPs) spend the most time on the electronic health record (EHR) of any specialty. Thus, it is critical to understand what factors contribute to varying levels of PCP time spent on EHRs.ObjectiveTo characterize variation in EHR time across PCPs and primary care clinics, and to describe how specific PCP, patient panel, clinic, and team collaboration factors are associated with PCPs' time spent on EHRs.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included 307 PCPs practicing across 31 primary care clinics at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital during 2021. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to October 2023.Main outcomes and measuresTotal per-visit EHR time, total per-visit pajama time (ie, time spent on the EHR between 5:30 pm to 7:00 am and on weekends), and total per-visit time on the electronic inbox as measured by activity log data derived from an EHR database.ResultsThe sample included 307 PCPs (183 [59.6%] female). On a per-visit basis, PCPs spent a median (IQR) of 36.2 (28.9-45.7) total minutes on the EHR, 6.2 (3.1-11.5) minutes of pajama time, and 7.8 (5.5-10.7) minutes on the electronic inbox. When comparing PCP time expenditure by clinic, median (IQR) total EHR time, median (IQR) pajama time, and median (IQR) electronic inbox time ranged from 23.5 (20.7-53.1) to 47.9 (30.6-70.7) minutes per visit, 1.7 (0.7-10.5) to 13.1 (7.7-28.2) minutes per visit, and 4.7 (4.1-5.2) to 10.8 (8.9-15.2) minutes per visit, respectively. In a multivariable model with an outcome of total per-visit EHR time per visit, an above median percentage of teamwork on orders was associated with 3.81 (95% CI, 0.49-7.13) minutes per visit fewer and having a clinic pharmacy technician was associated with 7.87 (95% CI, 2.03-13.72) minutes per visit fewer. Practicing in a community health center was associated with fewer minutes of total EHR time per visit (5.40 [95% CI, 0.06-10.74] minutes).Conclusions and relevanceThere is substantial variation in EHR time among individual PCPs and PCPs within clinics. Organization-level factors, such as team collaboration on orders, support for medication refill functions, and practicing in a community health center, are associated with lower EHR time for PCPs. These findings highlight the importance of addressing EHR burden at a systems level.

Dataset Information

Exploring factors improving support for vaccinations among Polish primary care physicians.

Publications

Exploring factors improving support for vaccinations among Polish primary care physicians.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets