High rates of anorectal chlamydia in women:Cross-sectional study in general practice

BACKGROUND: Genital and anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis frequently present together in sexually transmitted infection clinics. AIM: This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of co-occurrent genital and anorectal chlamydia infection, and to study whether sexual behavior is associated with anorectal infection. DESIGN & SETTING: A cross-sectional study in general practices in the north of the Netherlands. METHOD: Women attending general practice with an indication for genital chlamydia testing were included and asked to complete a structured questionnaire on sexual behaviour. Anorectal infection prevalence was compared according to testing indications: standard vs experimental (ie, based on questionnaire answers). Variables associated with anorectal chlamydia were analysed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Data could be analysed for 497 of 515 included women. Overall, 17.8% (87/490) were positive for C. trachomatis; of these, 72.4% (63/87) had co-occurrent genital and anorectal infection, 13.8% (12/87) had genital infection only, and 12.6% (11/87) had anorectal infection only. Rectal infection was missed in 69.3% of cases using the standard indication alone, while adding the sexual history still missed 20.0%. Age was the only variable significantly associated with anorectal infection. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of anorectal disease is high among women who visit their general practitioner with an indication for genital C. trachomatis testing. Many anorectal infections are missed despite taking comprehensive sexual histories, meaning that standard treatment of genital infection with azithromycin may result in rectal persistence. Performing anorectal testing in all women with an indication for genital C. trachomatis testing is therefore recommended

Factors affecting patient recruitment to trials:qualitative research in general practice

BACKGROUND: Patient recruitment to clinical research is often challenging and, when inadequate, can result in delayed or underpowered studies. Recruitment problems were experienced during a study of women with heavy menstrual bleeding in general practice (the MIRA trial). Although efforts were made to reduce the burden of the study for those participating, patient recruitment was still an issue. AIM: To identify the barriers and facilitators associated with patient recruitment to clinical trials, as experienced by GPs. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative study was performed in Dutch general practice, using semi-structured interviews. METHOD: GPs participating in the MIRA trial were selected by purposive sampling and interviewed until saturation was reached. Three independent researchers performed data coding and thematic analysis. Consensus on the identified themes was reached by discussion among the researchers. RESULTS: Sixteen GPs were interviewed. The following factors were noted to influence recruitment: the incidence of the disease under study; awareness of the study; attitude towards scientific research; perceived burden for the patient; usual care by the GP; time investment; characteristics of the GP and their practice; and patient experience of research participation. CONCLUSION: The identified barriers and facilitators associated with patient recruitment highlight the areas in which future studies can be improved. Indeed, benefits could be gained by simply ensuring that study procedures are clear, by requiring limited (time) investment from the GP, and by investing in personal communication and reminders to keep the GP motivated and interested. Placing greater importance on scientific research during the GP training programme could also serve as a means to motivate future GPs to integrate scientific research in their clinical practice

Care provided by general practitioners to patients with psychotic disorders: a cohort study

Background: Patients suffering from psychotic disorders have an increased risk of comorbid somatic diseases such as cardiovascular disorders and diabetes mellitus. Doctor-related factors, such as unfamiliarity with these patients, as well as patient-related factors, such as cognitive disturbance and negative symptoms, contribute to suboptimal health care for these patients. General practitioners (GPs) could play a key role in diagnosing and treating this somatic comorbidity as in the Netherlands, almost all residents are registered at a general practice. This study aims to find out whether there are any differences between the levels of health care provided by GPs to patients with psychotic disorders, compared to other types of patients. Methods: A cohort of patients with an ICPC code of psychosis and two matched control groups, one consisting of patients with other mental problems and the other one of patients without any mental problems, were followed over a period of 5 years. Results: Patients with psychotic disorders (N = 734) contacted the GP practice more often than patients in the control groups. These patients, both adults (p = 0.051) and the elderly (p < 0.005), received more home visits from their GPs. In the adult group (16 to 65 years old inclusive), the number of consultations was significantly higher among both psychosis patients and the group of patients with other mental problems (p < 0.0005). The number of telephone consultations was significantly higher in both age categories, adult group (p < 0.0005), and > 65 years old (p = 0.007). With regard to chronic illnesses, elderly psychosis patients had fewer contacts related to cardiovascular diseases or chronic lung diseases. Conclusion: Patients with psychotic disorders contact the GP practice more frequently than other types of patients. Adult psychosis patients with diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases or chronic lung diseases receive the same amount of health care for these diseases as other primary care patients. The finding that older patients with psychotic disorders are diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases and obstructive lung diseases less frequently than other types of elderly patients requires further study

Barriers and Facilitators Associated With App-Based Treatment for Female Urinary Incontinence:Mixed Methods Evaluation

BACKGROUND: App-based treatment for urinary incontinence is a proven effective and cost-effective alternative to care as usual, but successful implementation requires that we identify and address the barriers and facilitators associated with app use. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the research was to explore the factors influencing app-based treatment for urinary incontinence and identify which barriers or facilitators are associated with treatment success or failure. METHODS: We used a sequential explanatory mixed methods design to connect the results of a randomized controlled trial with data from semistructured interviews. This previous RCT had shown the noninferiority of app-based treatment compared with care as usual for urinary incontinence over 4 months. Participants who reported success or failure with app-based treatment, as measured by the change in International Consultation on Incontinence Modular Questionnaire Urinary Incontinence Short Form symptom score, were selected for telephone interview by purposive sampling (n=17). This study reports mainly on the qualitative component of our mixed methods study. Qualitative analyses were conducted in two ways. First, we analyzed the qualitative data of all interviewed participants and discussed the relationships between the main themes. Second, the experiences between the success (n=9) and failure group (n=8) were compared and contrasted to explore factors that were positively or negatively associated with the quantitative effect of app-based treatment. These factors were then interpreted as barriers to and facilitators of successful app-based treatment. RESULTS: Four interrelated themes were identified as affecting the app based treatment effect: adherence, personal factors, app factors, and awareness. Qualitative analyses of the relationships between the themes showed that adherence-related factors directly influenced treatment effect in both a positive and negative matter. In turn, adherence was also positively and negatively influenced by the other 3 themes. Additionally, awareness was positively influenced by the treatment effect. Within these themes, several factors were identified that acted as barriers (eg, unrealistic expectation of time investment and interfering personal circumstances), facilitators (eg, strict integration of exercises and prior pelvic floor muscle therapy), or both (eg, personality traits and increased awareness of symptoms). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the effect of app-based treatment for urinary incontinence is mainly influenced by adherence, which in turn is affected by personal factors, app-based factors, and awareness. The identified factors could function as both facilitators and barriers depending on the user and interaction with other themes. Insight into these facilitators and barriers could lead to improved implementation and increased treatment effectiveness by targeting women most likely to benefit and through further development of the app. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1002/nau.2350

One year effectiveness of an app-based treatment for urinary incontinence in comparison to care as usual in Dutch general practice:A pragmatic randomised controlled trial over 12 months

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term effectiveness of app-based treatment for female stress, urgency, or mixed urinary incontinence (UI) compared to care-as-usual in primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. SETTING: Primary care in the Netherlands from 2015 to 2018, follow-up at 12 months. POPULATION: Women with ≥2 UI-episodes per week, access to mobile apps, wanting treatment. 262 women randomised equally to app or care-as-usual; 89 (68%) and 83 (63%) attended one year follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: The standalone app included conservative management for UI with motivation aids (e.g., reminders). Care-as-usual delivered according to the Dutch GP guideline for UI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness assessed by the change in symptom severity score (ICIQ-UI-SF) and the change in quality of life (ICIQ-LUTS-QoL) with linear regression on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Clinically relevant improvement of UI severity for both app (-2.17 ± 2.81) and care-as-usual (-3.43 ± 3.6), with a non-significant mean difference of 0.903 (-0.66 to 1.871). CONCLUSION: App-based treatment is a viable alternative to care-as-usual for UI in primary care in terms of effectiveness after one year