Attitudes to and experience of disease management programs in primary care-an exploratory survey of general practitioners in Germany.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Disease management programs (DMPs) were set up in Germany in 2003 to improve outpatient care of chronically ill patients. The present study looks at the attitudes and experiences of general practitioners (GPs) in relation to DMPs, how they rate them almost 20 years after their introduction and where they see a need for improvement.Methods
A total of 1504 GPs in the Federal States of Rhineland Palatinate, Saarland and Hesse were surveyed between December 2019 and March 2020 using a written questionnaire.Results
In total, 58% of respondents rate DMPs positively and regard them as making a useful contribution to primary care. The guarantee of regular, structured patient care and greater compliance are regarded as particularly positive aspects. It was also established that diagnostic and therapeutic knowledge was expanded through participation in DMPs. 57% essentially follow the DMP recommendations for (drug) treatment. Despite positive experiences of DMPs in patient care, the GPs surveyed mention various challenges (documentation requirements, frequent changes to the programmes, inflexibility). Univariant linear regression analysis revealed factors influencing the satisfaction with DMPs, such as improvement of compliance and clearly defined procedures in medical care.Conclusion
Most of the GPs surveyed consider the combination of continuous patient care and evidence-based diagnosis and treatment to be a great advantage. To better adapt DMPs to the conditions of primary care, it makes sense to simplify the documentation requirements, to regulate cooperation with other healthcare levels more clearly and to give GPs more decision-making flexibility. Increased inclusion of GP experience in the process of developing and refining DMPs can be helpful.
SUBMITTER: Wangler J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8484225 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Medical guidelines aim to ensure that care processes take place in an evidence-based and structured manner. They are especially relevant in outpatient primary care due to the wide range of symptoms and clinical pictures. In German-speaking countries, there is a lack of current findings documenting general practitioners' opinions and experiences regarding guidelines, their expectations and their views on what improvements could be made to increase the use of this type of evidence-based instrument in the primary care setting. Between April and August 2020, a total of 3098 general practitioners were surveyed in the states of Baden-Württemberg, Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate via an online questionnaire. Alongside the descriptive evaluation, t‑testing was used to determine significant differences between two independent sampling groups. A factor analysis was also used to cluster the expectations of those surveyed regarding the fulfilment of requirements relating to guidelines. A total of 52% of those surveyed have a positive view of guidelines. Overall, guidelines are associated with an increased evidence-based approach (69%), standardisation of diagnosis and treatment (62%) and a reduction in overprovision or underprovision of care (57%). In all, 62% of the physicians who implemented guidelines observed positive effects on the quality of care provided, and 67% reported that the implementation of guidelines improved the quality of their diagnostic or therapeutic skills. However, implementation is often seen as being complicated (43%) and restricting the physician's ability to act independently (63%). Survey participants suggested that guidelines could be optimised by giving greater consideration to nondrug alternatives (46%), focusing on issues related to quality of life (42%) and offering a comparative assessment of various treatment options (39%). In order to further promote the attractiveness of guidelines for primary care the design of guidelines should be oriented more towards their application; they should be well-presented to make them easier to implement. The scope of action available to the physician should be stressed. The guidelines should provide recommendations on opportunities for the delegation of tasks within practice teams.
| S-EPMC8484242 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOsteopathy is a type of complementary medicine based on specific manual techniques. In many countries, including Germany, the profession is not officially regulated, and evidence for the effectiveness of osteopathy is insufficient for most diseases. Nevertheless, many health insurances in Germany offer reimbursement for therapy costs, if osteopathy is recommended by a physician. This cross-sectional survey of German general practitioners (GPs) explored beliefs and attitudes towards osteopathic medicine and described their daily interactions with it.MethodsA random sample of 1000 GPs from all federal states was surveyed by mail using a self-designed questionnaire. We collected data on sociodemographics, personal experiences with osteopathy, and attitudes and expectations towards osteopathy. In particular, participants were asked about indications for osteopathic treatment and their beliefs about its effectiveness for different patient groups and diagnoses. A self-designed score was used to estimate general attitudes towards osteopathy and identify factors correlated with greater openness. Additionally, we performed logistic regression to reveal factors associated with the frequency of recommending osteopathy to patients.ResultsResponse rate was 34.4%. 46.5% of participants were women, and the median age was 56.0 years. 91.3% of GPs had referred patients to an osteopath, and 88.0% had recommended osteopathy to their patients. However, 57.5% acknowledged having little or no knowledge about osteopathy. Most frequent reasons for a recommendation were spinal column disorders (46.2%), other complaints of the musculoskeletal system (18.2%) and headaches (9.8%). GPs estimated the highest benefit for chronically ill and middle-aged adults. Female gender (OR 2.09; 95%CI 1.29-3.38) and personal treatment experiences (OR 5.14; 95%CI 2.72-9.72) were independently positively associated with more frequent treatment recommendation.ConclusionGPs in Germany have frequent contact with osteopathy, and the vast majority have recommended osteopathic treatment to some extent in their practice, with foci and opinions comparable to other Western countries. The discrepancy between GPs making frequent referrals for osteopathic treatment while self-assessing to have little knowledge about it demonstrates need for intensified research on the collaboration with osteopaths and how to best integrate osteopathic treatments. Our results may help to focus future effectiveness studies on most relevant clinical conditions in general practice.
| S-EPMC8499418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObesity poses severe challenges for the health care system. GPs are in an advantageous position to contribute to preventing obesity by diagnosing patients and initiating treatment. Sporadic studies have shown that attitudes towards obesity management in primary care can have a major influence on treating patients successfully.ObjectivesThe study focuses on attitudes and behavioural patterns towards obesity patients, willingness to provide care, approaches and strategies, and the challenges experienced.MethodsAfter developing the interview guides based on a literature review, 36 GPs in North Rhine-Westphalia and Saarland, Germany, were interviewed between November 2019 and March 2020. Using qualitative typing according to Kluge, different prototypes of GPs were formed. The dimensions of the interview guides were used for deriving the prototypes.ResultsGPs were categorised into four types depending on how they saw themselves and their role in treating patients. The first type (the resigned) was conspicuous through its negative attitude towards obesity management and a lack of willingness to provide care. The second type (the instructors) emphasised the value of active exercise, diet and health promotion, while the third type (the motivators) saw psychosocial support and motivation as a key element in helping patients. In contrast, type four (the educators) focussed primarily on early prevention through patient education.ConclusionDepending on which (proto-)type a patient visits, different focuses and strategies are pursued for obesity management and doctor-patient communication. This results in different perspectives and chances of success about therapeutic measures.
| S-EPMC7993392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background General practitioners are considered to be well suited when it comes to addressing the information and care needs of family caregivers. The aim of the present study is to examine how general practitioners assess their possibilities to support caregivers, what priorities they set and to what extent they experience challenges.Methods and participants In the course of an online survey with a postal cover letter, a total of 3,556 GPs in in Baden-Württemberg, Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate were interviewed between February and June 2021. Due to the exploratory approach of the study, only a descriptive data analysis was carried out.Results 68 % of the GPs surveyed often deal with family caregivers in everyday practice; 77 % consider the GP's office to be well suited as the primary point of contact for family caregivers and care coordination. Often it is caregiving relatives who ask the GP about the issue of care (89 %). Frequent contents concern a deterioration in the care situation (75 %) and a change in the need for care (84 %); consultations in the initial phase of care are less common (40 %). There are differences between urban and rural doctors in the perception of the needs of caregivers and the setting of priorities. Rural doctors give more weight to proactive and psychosocial care, whereas doctors in urban regions rely on the specialist and support network. GPs experience various challenges while supporting caregivers, including the timely organization of suitable relief offers (87 %), the referral to suitable offers of help (79 %) or the early identification of informal caregivers (59 %).Discussion GPs can play a central role in supporting family caregivers. A crucial prerequisite for this is that family caregivers are recognized and involved at an early stage. Consistent references to offers of help make it easier for family caregivers to organize care and to receive (psychosocial) support. In addition, it is important that GPs take into account the needs, desires and stresses of both caregivers and those being cared for.
| S-EPMC8714302 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDementia is often underdiagnosed in general practice, which may be based on general practitioners' (GPs') knowledge and emotional factors as well as external problems. This study aimed to describe GPs' attitudes toward early diagnosis of dementia.MethodsCross-sectional postal survey in Switzerland in 2017. Members of the Swiss Association of General Practitioners (N = 4460) were asked to participate in the survey. The questionnaire assessed attitudes, enablers and barriers to early dementia diagnosis and post-diagnostic intervention strategies. Exploratory factor analysis and linear regression were used.ResultsThe survey response rate was 21%. 85% of GPs agreed with enablers of early dementia recognition (e.g. "Plan for the future, organize support and care", "Minimize the strain and insecurity of patients and their informal family caregivers"). On the other hand, 15% of respondents perceived barriers towards early dementia recognition (e.g. "Time constraints in carrying out the necessary procedures to diagnose dementia"). GPs who were more likely to agree with barriers would less often counsel family members (β = - 0.05, 95% CI = - 0.09 - -0.02) or test fitness to drive (β = - 0.05, 95% CI = - 0.09 - -0.02), and more often choose a watchful waiting strategy (β = 0.05, 95% CI = 0.02-0.09).ConclusionsThe attitude of the majority of GPs is not characterized by diagnostic and therapeutic nihilism. However, negative attitudes were associated with sub-optimal management after the diagnosis. Thus, health systems are required to critically examine the use of available resources allowing GPs to look after patients and their relatives in a holistic way.
| S-EPMC6528190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInterprofessional medication management in primary care is a recognized strategy for improving medication safety, but it is poorly implemented in Germany. As a pilot project, ARMIN [Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen] was initiated in 2014 to establish better interprofessional medication management between general practitioners and community pharmacists.AimThe aim of this study was to explore the views of non-participating general practitioners and community pharmacists towards interprofessional medication management within ARMIN and to identify barriers to participation.MethodThis was an interview study comprising a series of semi-structured telephone interviews. In total, 36 general practitioners and 15 community pharmacists were interviewed in the period between March and June 2020. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis as an inductive approach and the consolidated framework for implementation research as a deductive approach.ResultsMany general practitioners and community pharmacists had a generally positive attitude towards interprofessional medication management. However, various barriers were identified and categorized into five major themes: (I) collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists, e.g. concerning general practitioners' professional sovereignty and pharmacists' fear of jeopardizing their relationship with general practitioners when interfering in therapy; (II) eligibility for participation, e.g., the fact that patients had to be insured with a specific statutory health insurance fund; (III) local circumstances, e.g. many pharmacists could not find a collaborating general practitioner (and vice versa). Moreover, patient demand was low, probably because patients were not aware of the program; (IV) information technology, e.g. concerning the lack of available software and data security concerns; and (V) cost-benefit ratio, e.g. the fact that potential benefits were outweighed by program-associated costs.ConclusionThe perceived discrepancy between positive attitudes and multiple prevalent barriers indicates considerable potential for further interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists.
| S-EPMC9547634 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common spinal condition and the most frequent indication for spinal surgery in elderly people. General practitioners (GPs) are on the 1st line for its diagnosis and treatment. We aimed to assess how GPs diagnose and treat people with LSS in France. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional survey in a primary care setting. French GPs were selected by a random draw from the French Medical Board. The questionnaire was designed by 3 physicians specialized in physical and rehabilitation medicine and a resident in general practice. A provisional questionnaire was tested in a pilot survey of 11 French GPs. Participants' feedbacks served to build the final questionnaire. This latter was submitted by e-mail or mail to 330 GPs. GPs were surveyed about the 3 main domains relevant to the management of people with LSS in primary care: 1/ diagnosis, 2/ pharmacological treatments and 3/ non-pharmacological treatments, using self-administered open- and closed-ended questions and visual analog scales. RESULTS:Overall, 90/330 (27.3%) GPs completed the survey. 51/89 (57.3%) GPs were confident with managing people with LSS. Low back pain 51/87 (58.6%), neurogenic claudication 38/87 (43.7%) and paresthesia in the lower limbs 31/87 (35.6%) were the 3 most frequently cited clinical signs leading to the diagnosis of LSS. Improvement with lumbar flexion was mentioned by 9/87 (10.3%) GPs. 85/86 (98.8%) would consider prescribing lumbar imaging, 60/84 (71.4%) corticoid spinal injections and 42/79 (53.2%) would never prescribe lumbar flexion-based endurance training. All GPs would refer people with LSS to another specialist. CONCLUSIONS:French GPs lack confidence with diagnosing LSS and prescribing pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for people with LSS.
| S-EPMC6745066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.
| S-EPMC8759266 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOver-prescribing of benzodiazepines appears common in many countries, a better understanding of prescribing practices and attitudes may help develop strategies to reduce prescribing. This study aimed to evaluate benzodiazepine prescribing behaviour and attitudes in general practitioners practising in Chiang Mai and Lampoon, Thailand.MethodsQuestionnaire survey of general practitioners in community hospitals, to estimate: i) use of benzodiazepines for anxiety/insomnia, panic disorder, depression, essential hypertension, and uncomplicated low back pain and ii) views on the optimal duration of benzodiazepine use.ResultsFifty-five of 100 general practitioners returned the completed questionnaires. They reported use of benzodiazepines for anxiety/insomnia (n = 51, 93%), panic disorder (n = 43, 78%), depression (n = 26, 43%), essential hypertension (n = 15, 27 %) and uncomplicated low back pain (n = 10, 18%). Twenty-eight general practitioners would prescribe benzodiazepines for non-psychiatric conditions, 17 for use as muscle relaxants. Seventy-five per cent, 62% and 29% of the general practitioners agreed or totally agreed with the use of benzodiazepines for insomnia, anxiety and depression, respectively. Practitioners agreed that prescribing should be less than one week (80%); or from 1 week to 1 month (47%); or 1 to 4 months (16%); or 4 to 6 months (5%) or more than 6 months (2%). Twenty-five general practitioners (45%) accepted that they used benzodiazepines excessively in the past year.ConclusionA considerable proportion of general practitioners in Chiang Mai and Lampoon, Thailand inappropriately use benzodiazepines for physical illnesses, especially essential hypertension and uncomplicated low back pain. However, almost half of them thought that they overused benzodiazepines. General practitioner's lack of time, knowledge and skills should be taken into account in improving prescribing behaviour and attitudes.
| S-EPMC1182364 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the knowledge and attitudes of Australian general practitioners (GP) towards medicinal cannabis, including patient demand, GP perceptions of therapeutic effects and potential harms, perceived knowledge and willingness to prescribe.Design, setting and participantsA cross-sectional survey completed by 640 GPs (response rate=37%) attending multiple-topic educational seminars in five major Australian cities between August and November 2017.Main outcome measuresNumber of patients enquiring about medicinal cannabis, perceived knowledge of GPs, conditions where GPs perceived it to be beneficial, willingness to prescribe, preferred models of access, perceived adverse effects and safety relative to other prescription drugs.ResultsThe majority of GPs (61.5%) reported one or more patient enquiries about medicinal cannabis in the last three months. Most felt that their own knowledge was inadequate and only 28.8% felt comfortable discussing medicinal cannabis with patients. Over half (56.5%) supported availability on prescription, with the preferred access model involving trained GPs prescribing independently of specialists. Support for use of medicinal cannabis was condition-specific, with strong support for use in cancer pain, palliative care and epilepsy, and much lower support for use in depression and anxiety.ConclusionsThe majority of GPs are supportive or neutral with regards to medicinal cannabis use. Our results highlight the need for improved training of GPs around medicinal cannabis, and the discrepancy between GP-preferred models of access and the current specialist-led models.
| S-EPMC6042562 | biostudies-literature