A systematic review of questionnaires measuring asthma control in children in a primary care population

Several questionnaires are used to measure asthma control in children. The most appropriate tool for use in primary care is not defined. In this systematic review, we evaluated questionnaires used to measure asthma control in children in primary care and determined their usefulness in asthma management. Searches were performed in the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases with end date 24 June 2022. The study population comprised children aged 5–18 years with asthma. Three reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed, using the COSMIN criteria for the measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Studies conducted in primary care were included if a minimum of two questionnaires were compared. Studies in secondary or tertiary care and studies of quality-of-life questionnaires were excluded. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Five publications were included: four observational studies and one sub-study of a randomized controlled trial. A total of 806 children were included (aged 5–18 years). We evaluated the Asthma Control Test (ACT), childhood Asthma Control Test (c-ACT), Asthma APGAR system, NAEPP criteria and Royal College of Physicians’ ‘3 questions’ (RCP3Q). These questionnaires assess different symptoms and domains. The quality of most of the studies was rated ‘intermediate’ or ‘poor’. The majority of the evaluated questionnaires do not show substantial agreement with one another, which makes a comparison challenging. Based on the current review, we suggest that the Asthma APGAR system seems promising as a questionnaire for determining asthma control in children in primary care.</p

Reasons for unsuccessful recruitment of children with atopic dermatitis in primary care in the Netherlands to a cohort study with an embedded pragmatic, randomised controlled open-label trial:a survey

Background The Rotterdam Eczema Study was an observational cohort study with an embedded pragmatic randomised controlled open-label trial. It was conducted in children with atopic dermatitis (AD) in the Dutch primary care system. The objective of the trial was to determine whether a potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) is more effective than a low-potency TCS. Objective We are aiming to communicate transparently about the poor recruitment for the trial part and to explore the reasons why recruitment was weak. Design We used a survey to find out what patients in the cohort did when they experienced a flare-up. Methods Descriptive statistics were used to present the baseline characteristics of participants in the trial and the results of the survey. Results In total, 367 patients were included in the cohort. Of these, 32 were randomly assigned to a trial treatment; they had a median age of 4.0 years (IQR 2.0-9.8). A total of 69 of the 86 children (80.2%) who could participate in the survey responded. 39 (56.5%) suffered a flare-up during the follow-up (making them potentially eligible for inclusion in the trial). 26 out of 39 (66.7%) increased their use of an emollient and/or TCS themselves. Only 12 of the 39 (30.7%) contacted their general practitioner (GP) as instructed in the study protocol, but 8 out of these 12 did not meet the inclusion criteria for the trial. Conclusion The main reason why cohort participants did not take part in the trial was that they did not contact their GPs when they experienced an AD flare-up. Furthermore, the majority of patients who contacted their GPs did not match the inclusion criteria of the trial. We expect that the lessons learnt from this study will be useful when developing future studies of children with AD in primary care.</p

Reasons for unsuccessful recruitment of children with atopic dermatitis in primary care in the Netherlands to a cohort study with an embedded pragmatic, randomised controlled open-label trial:a survey

Background The Rotterdam Eczema Study was an observational cohort study with an embedded pragmatic randomised controlled open-label trial. It was conducted in children with atopic dermatitis (AD) in the Dutch primary care system. The objective of the trial was to determine whether a potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) is more effective than a low-potency TCS. Objective We are aiming to communicate transparently about the poor recruitment for the trial part and to explore the reasons why recruitment was weak. Design We used a survey to find out what patients in the cohort did when they experienced a flare-up. Methods Descriptive statistics were used to present the baseline characteristics of participants in the trial and the results of the survey. Results In total, 367 patients were included in the cohort. Of these, 32 were randomly assigned to a trial treatment; they had a median age of 4.0 years (IQR 2.0-9.8). A total of 69 of the 86 children (80.2%) who could participate in the survey responded. 39 (56.5%) suffered a flare-up during the follow-up (making them potentially eligible for inclusion in the trial). 26 out of 39 (66.7%) increased their use of an emollient and/or TCS themselves. Only 12 of the 39 (30.7%) contacted their general practitioner (GP) as instructed in the study protocol, but 8 out of these 12 did not meet the inclusion criteria for the trial. Conclusion The main reason why cohort participants did not take part in the trial was that they did not contact their GPs when they experienced an AD flare-up. Furthermore, the majority of patients who contacted their GPs did not match the inclusion criteria of the trial. We expect that the lessons learnt from this study will be useful when developing future studies of children with AD in primary care.</p

Musculoskeletal pain in 13-year-old children:the generation R study

Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is a common reason for consultation in general practice and frequently reported in children and adolescents. This study examined the prevalence of MSK pain in 13-year-old children and assessed associations with physical and psychosocial factors. Data from the Generation R Study, a population-based birth cohort, was used. Prevalence and characteristics of MSK pain were assessed, using a pain mannequin, at 13 years of age (N 5 3062). Demographics and data on physical activity, sedentary behaviors, previous reported MSK pain, and behavioral problems were extracted from questionnaires. The body mass index (BMI) SD-score was calculated from objectively measured weight and height. A prevalence of 23.3% was found for MSK pain in children of which 87.2% persisted for more than 3 months (ie, chronic), 45.5% experienced pain daily. More physically active children and children with a higher BMI reported MSK pain more frequently compared with non-MSK pain and no pain. The knee was the most often reported location. Children with MSK pain were more likely to have reported MSK pain at 6 years. Multivariable analyses showed significant associations for male sex (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.98), high maternal educational (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.96), higher BMI (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05-1.35), being physically active (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.03-1.91), and behavioral problems (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.33-2.59) with the presence of MSK pain. The chronic nature of MSK pain in combination with the relatively high prevalence of MSK pain in this study shows that MSK pain is already an important problem at a young age.</p

Process evaluation of a multicentre randomised clinical trial of substituting surgical excisions of low-risk basal cell carcinomas from secondary to primary care

OBJECTIVES: In 2016, the SKINCATCH Trial, a clustered multi-centre randomised trial, was initiated to assess whether low-risk basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) can be treated by general practitioners (GPs) without loss of quality of care. The trial intervention consisted of a tailored 2-day educational course on skin cancer management. The aim of this process evaluation was to investigate GPs’ exposure to the intervention, implementation of the intervention and experiences with the intervention and trial. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data on exposure to the intervention, implementation and experiences were obtained at several points during the trial. Complementary quantitative components (ie, surveys, database analysis, medical record analysis) and qualitative components (ie, interviews and focus groups) were used. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics; qualitative data were summarised (barrier interviews) or audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using Atlas.Ti (focus groups). RESULTS: Following a 100% intervention exposure, results concerning the implementation of the trial showed that aside from the low inclusion rate of patients with low-risk BCCs (n=54), even less excisions of low-risk BCCs were performed (n=40). Although the intervention was experienced as highly positive, several barriers were mentioned regarding the trial including administrative challenges, lack of time and high workload of GPs, low volume of BCC patients and patients declining to participate or requesting a referral to a dermatologist. CONCLUSIONS: Although GPs’ participation in the highly valued training was optimal, several barriers may have contributed to the low inclusion and excision rate of low-risk BCCs. While some of the issues were trial-related, other barriers such as low patient-volume and patients requesting referrals are applicable outside the trial setting as well. This may question the feasibility of substitution of surgical excisions of low-risks BCCs from secondary to primary care in the current Dutch setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial NL5631 (NTR5746)

Blood pressure measurements for diagnosing hypertension in primary care:room for improvement

Background: In the adult population, about 50% have hypertension, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and subsequent premature death. Little is known about the quality of the methods used to diagnose hypertension in primary care. Objectives: The objective was to assess the frequency of use of recognized methods to establish a diagnosis of hypertension, and specifically for OBPM, whether three distinct measurements were taken, and how correctly the blood pressure levels were interpreted. Methods: A retrospective population-based cohort study using electronic medical records of patients aged between 40 and 70 years, who visited their general practitioner (GP) with a new-onset of hypertension in the years 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2020. A visual chart review of the electronic medical records was used to assess the methods employed to diagnose hypertension in a random sample of 500 patients. The blood pressure measurement method was considered complete if three or more valid office blood pressure measurements (OBPM) were performed, or home-based blood pressure measurements (HBPM), the office- based 30-minute method (OBP30), or 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (24 H-ABPM) were used. Results: In all study years, OBPM was the most frequently used method to diagnose new-onset hypertension in patients. The OBP-30 method was used in 0.4% (2012), 4.2% (2016), 10.6% (2019), and 9.8% (2020) of patients respectively, 24 H-ABPM in 16.0%, 22.2%, 17.2%, and 19.0% of patients and HBPM measurements in 5.4%, 8.4%, 7.6%, and 7.8% of patients, respectively. A diagnosis of hypertension based on only one or two office measurements occurred in 85.2% (2012), 87.9% (2016), 94.4% (2019), and 96.8% (2020) of all patients with OBPM. In cases of incomplete measurement and incorrect interpretation, medication was still started in 64% of cases in 2012, 56% (2016), 60% (2019), and 73% (2020). Conclusion: OBPM is still the most often used method to diagnose hypertension in primary care. The diagnosis was often incomplete or misinterpreted using incorrect cut-off levels. A small improvement occurred between 2012 and 2016 but no further progress was seen in 2019 or 2020. If hypertension is inappropriately diagnosed, it may result in under treatment or in prolonged, unnecessary treatment of patients. There is room for improvement in the general practice setting.</p

Medical students’ perception of general practice:a cross-sectional survey

Background: An increase in the demand for general practitioners is expected in many countries, but only a minority of medical students consider a career in general practice. More detailed and up-to-date knowledge about medical student’s perception of general practice would be helpful for efforts to encourage medical students to consider a career in general practice. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional single center survey among Dutch medical students to evaluate their perception of general practice at three different stages in their study: Ba1: first-year bachelor students; Ba3: third-year bachelor students; Ma3: third-year master students. The impact of different factors on their attitudes and perceptions was quantified. A multivariate logistic regression was performed with ‘interest in general practice’ as the outcome variable. Results: The median age for Ba1 was 18 (IQR: 18–19) and 71.5% were female, for Ba3 the median age was 20 (IQR: 20–21) and 70.6% were female and for Ma3 the median age was 25 years (IQR: 24–26) and 73.3% were female. On average, 31.2% of the respondents had a migration background. The mean response rate for this study was 77.1%. Of the participating Ba1 students (n = 340) only 22.4% considered working as a GP after medical school; for Ba3 students (n = 231) this percentage was 33.8%, and for Ma3 students (n = 210) it was significantly higher at 70.5%; in the final multivariate model this corresponded to an odds ratio (OR) of 4.3 (95%-CI:2.6–6.9) compared to Ba1 students. The strongest predictor in the final model was the opinion that general practice provides a pleasant working environment (OR 9.5; 95%-CI: 6.2–14.5). Conclusion: This study showed that multiple factors are significantly related to medical students’ interest in general practice. Although students believed that general practice does not have a high status within the medical profession, they acknowledged the social importance and the pleasant working environment of general practice. Knowledge obtained in this study can be used when designing a medical curriculum or a general practice course.</p

Hair glucocorticoids in adults with intellectual disabilities and depressive symptoms pre- and post-bright light therapy:First explorations

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms and stress are common in adults with intellectual disabilities. Our aim was to explore long‐term biological stress levels, assessed by hair cortisol (HairF) and cortisone (HairE) concentrations, in adults with intellectual disabilities and depressive symptoms and to investigate the effects of bright light therapy (BLT) on hair glucocorticoids. METHOD: Scalp hair samples (n = 14) were retrospectively examined at baseline and post‐BLT (10.000 and 300 lux). Liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry was used to measure hair glucocorticoids. RESULTS: A significant correlation was found between baseline HairF and depression scores (r = .605, p = .028). Post‐intervention HairE levels were significantly increased ([95% CI: 11.2–17.4 pg/mg], p = .003), in particular after dim light (300 lux) ([95% CI: 10.0–18.3 pg/mg], p = .020). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that retrospectively examining biological levels of stress in adults with intellectual disabilities seems a potentially promising and objective method to gain insight in the stress level of adults with intellectual disabilities

Antidepressant and anticonvulsant prescription rates in patients with osteoarthritis:A population-based cohort study

Objectives: There are signs that antidepressants and anticonvulsants are being prescribed more often for OA patients, despite limited evidence. Our objectives were to examine prescription rates and time trends for antidepressants and anticonvulsants in OA patients, to assess the percentage of long-term prescriptions, and to determine patient characteristics associated with antidepressant or anticonvulsant prescription. Methods: A population-based cohort study was conducted using the Integrated Primary Care Information database. First, episodic and prevalent prescription rates for antidepressants (amitriptyline, nortriptyline and duloxetine) and anticonvulsants (gabapentinoids) in OA patients were calculated for the period 2008-17. Logistic regression was used to assess which patient characteristics were associated with prescriptions.  Results: In total, 164 292 OA patients were included. The prescription rates of amitriptyline, gabapentin and pregabalin increased over time. The increase in prescription rates for pregabalin was most pronounced. Episodic prescription rate increased from 7.1 to 13.9 per 1000 person-years between 2008 and 2017. Amitriptyline was prescribed most (15.1 episodic prescriptions per 1000 person-years in 2017). Prescription rates of nortriptyline and duloxetine remained stable at 3.0 and 2.0 episodic prescriptions per 1000 person-years, respectively. For ≤3% of patients with incident OA, medication was prescribed long-term (≥3 months). In general, all medication was prescribed more frequently for older patients (except duloxetine), women, patients with OA in ≥2 joints, patients with spinal OA and patients with musculoskeletal disorders.  Conclusion: Prescription rates of amitriptyline, gabapentin and pregabalin increased over time. Since there is little evidence to support prescription in OA, caution is necessary when prescribing. </p