Dataset Information

Osteopathy in Germany: attitudes, beliefs and handling among general practitioners - results of a nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Osteopathy 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.

Methods

A 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.

Results

Response 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.

Conclusion

GPs 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.

SUBMITTER: Schmid GL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8499418 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn Germany, skin cancer screening (SCS) is available free of charge every two years to all those with statutory health insurance over the age of 35. General Practitioners (GP) can carry out the screening if they have completed an 8-hour training course. GPs play a crucial role in the implementation of SCS and act as gatekeepers between initial patient contact and referral to dermatologists.ObjectiveTo record how comprehensively GPs carry out SCS in terms of patient information and body examination, as well as to explore GPs opinions on the feasibility of SCS.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted. A questionnaire was sent to GPs with permission to perform SCS in two regions of Germany (Bavaria and Saxony) between August and September 2021. Data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed according to regions (federal state, location of physician´s office), professional experience (experience in years, number of monthly screenings, age) and gender. Open questions were evaluated using qualitative content analysis.ResultsIn the survey, 204 GPs responded. Genitalia (40.7%, 83/203), anal fold (62.3%, 127/204) and oral mucosa (66.7%, 136/204) were the least examined body regions during screening. Information on risks (false-positive findings: 18.6%, 38/203; false-negative findings: 13.2%, 27/203; overdiagnosis: 7.8%, 16/203) and benefits (48.0%, 98/202) were not always provided. GPs who performed screenings more frequently were more likely to provide information about the benefits of SCS (p<0.001; >10 vs. <5 screenings per month). Opinions were provided on uncertainties, knowledge requirements, structural and organizational requirements of SCS, SCS training and evaluation. The organization and remuneration of the SCS programme was seen as a barrier to implementation. GPs expressed uncertainties especially in unclear findings and in dermatoscopy.ConclusionUncertainties in the implementation of the SCS should be addressed by offering refresher courses. Good networking between GPs and dermatologists is essential to improve SCS quality.

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.