Infectious disease management in primary care: perceptions of GPs

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is important to keep the level of antibiotic prescribing low to contain the development of resistant bacteria. This study was conducted to reveal new knowledge about how GPs think in relation to the prescribing of antibiotics - knowledge that could be used in efforts toward rational treatment of infectious diseases in primary care. The aim was to explore and describe the variations in GPs' perceptions of infectious disease management, with special reference to antibiotic prescribing.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty GPs working at primary care centres in a county in south-west Sweden were purposively selected based on the strategy of including GPs with different kinds of experience. The GPs were interviewed and perceptions among GPs were analysed by a phenomenographic approach.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Five qualitatively different perceptions of infectious disease management were identified. They were: (A) the GP must help the patient to achieve health and well-being; (B) the management must meet the GP's perceived personal, professional and organisational demands; (C) restrictive antibiotic prescribing is time-consuming; (D) restrictive antibiotic prescribing can protect the effectiveness of antibiotics; and (E) patients benefit personally from restrictive antibiotic prescribing.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Restrictive antibiotic prescribing was considered important in two perceptions, was not an issue as such in two others, and was considered in one perception although the actual prescribing was greatly influenced by the interaction between patient and GP. Accordingly, to encourage restrictive antibiotic prescribing several aspects must be addressed. Furthermore, different GPs need various kinds of support. Infectious disease management in primary care is complex and time-consuming, which must be acknowledged in healthcare organisation and planning.</p

General beliefs about medicines among doctors and nurses in out-patient care: a cross-sectional study

Background: Doctors and nurses are two natural partners in the healthcare team, but they usually differ in their perspectives on how to work for increased health. These professions may also have different beliefs about medicines, a factor important for adherence to medicines. The aim was to explore general beliefs about medicines among doctors and nurses.Methods: Questionnaires were sent to 306 private practitioners (PPs), 298 general practitioners (GPs) and 303 nurses in the county of Västra Götaland, Sweden. The questionnaire included sociodemographic questions and the general part of the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ), which measures the beliefs people have about medicines in general. General beliefs about medicines in relation to background variables were explored with independent t-tests and ANOVA analyses. Differences between occupations and influences of interaction variables were analysed with multiple linear regression models for general beliefs about medicines.  Results: The data collection resulted in 616 questionnaires (62.1% PPs; 61.6% GPs; 80.5% nurses). The majority of the PPs and 40% of the GPs were male but most of the nurses were female. The GPs' mean age was 47 years, PPs' 60 years and nurses' 52 years. Few nurses originated from non-Nordic countries while 15% of the PPs and 25% of the GPs did. Nurses saw medicines as more harmful and less beneficial than did PPs and GPs. These differences could not be explained by the included interaction variables. GPs with a Nordic background saw medicines as more beneficial and less harmful than did GPs with a non-Nordic background. Furthermore, GPs of non-Nordic origin were most likely to believe that medicines were  overprescribed by doctors.Conclusion: Doctors were more positive about medicines than nurses. The differences in beliefs about medicines found between doctors and nurses could not be explained by any of the included interaction variables. These differences in beliefs may be useful in discussions among future and practising doctors and nurses to enhance understanding of each other's profession and teamwork. </p

Work and family: associations with long-term sick-listing in Swedish women – a case-control study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The number of Swedish women who are long-term sick-listed is high, and twice as high as for men. Also the periods of sickness absence have on average been longer for women than for men. The objective of this study was to investigate the associations between factors in work- and family life and long-term sick-listing in Swedish women.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This case-control study included 283 women on long-term sick-listing ≥90 days, and 250 female referents, randomly chosen, living in five counties in Sweden. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses with odds ratios were calculated to estimate the associations between long-term sick-listing and factors related to occupational work and family life.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Long-term sick-listing in women is associated with self-reported lack of competence for work tasks (OR 2.42 1.23–11.21 log reg), workplace dissatisfaction (OR 1.89 1.14–6.62 log reg), physical workload above capacity (1.78 1.50–5.94), too high mental strain in work tasks (1.61 1.08–5.01 log reg), number of employers during work life (OR 1.39 1.35–4.03 log reg), earlier part-time work (OR 1.39 1.18–4.03 log reg), and lack of influence on working hours (OR 1.35 1.47–3.86 log reg). A younger age at first child, number of children, and main responsibility for own children was also found to be associated with long-term sick-listing. Almost all of the sick-listed women (93%) wanted to return to working life, and 54% reported they could work immediately if adjustments at work or part-time work were possible.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Factors in work and in family life could be important to consider to prevent women from being long-term sick-listed and promote their opportunities to remain in working life. Measures ought to be taken to improve their mobility in work life and control over decisions and actions regarding theirs lives.</p

Molecular Epidemiology and Evolution of Human Respiratory Syncytial Virus and Human Metapneumovirus

Human respiratory syncytial virus (HRSV) and human metapneumovirus (HMPV) are ubiquitous respiratory pathogens of the Pneumovirinae subfamily of the Paramyxoviridae. Two major surface antigens are expressed by both viruses; the highly conserved fusion (F) protein, and the extremely diverse attachment (G) glycoprotein. Both viruses comprise two genetic groups, A and B. Circulation frequencies of the two genetic groups fluctuate for both viruses, giving rise to frequently observed switching of the predominantly circulating group. Nucleotide sequence data for the F and G gene regions of HRSV and HMPV variants from the UK, the Netherlands, Bangkok and data available from Genbank were used to identify clades of both viruses. Several contemporary circulating clades of HRSV and HMPV were identified by phylogenetic reconstructions. The molecular epidemiology and evolutionary dynamics of clades were modelled in parallel. Times of origin were determined and positively selected sites were identified. Sustained circulation of contemporary clades of both viruses for decades and their global dissemination demonstrated that switching of the predominant genetic group did not arise through the emergence of novel lineages each respiratory season, but through the fluctuating circulation frequencies of pre-existing lineages which undergo proliferative and eclipse phases. An abundance of sites were identified as positively selected within the G protein but not the F protein of both viruses. For HRSV, these were discordant with previously identified residues under selection, suggesting the virus can evade immune responses by generating diversity at multiple sites within linear epitopes. For both viruses, different sites were identified as positively selected between genetic groups