Striking variations in consultation rates with general practice reveal family influence

BACKGROUND: The reasons why patients decide to consult a general practitioner vary enormously. While there may be individual reasons for this variation, the family context has a significant and unique influence upon the frequency of individuals' visits. The objective of this study was to explore which family factors can explain the differences between strikingly high, and correspondingly low, family consultation rates in families with children aged up to 21. METHODS: Data were used from the second Dutch national survey of general practice. This survey extracted from the medical records of 96 practices in the Netherlands, information on all consultations with patients during 2001. We defined, through multilevel analysis, two groups of families. These had respectively, predominantly high, and low, contact frequencies due to a significant family influence upon the frequency of the individual's first contacts. Binomial logistic regression analyses were used to analyse which of the family factors, related to shared circumstances and socialisation conditions, can explain the differences in consultation rates between the two groups of families. RESULTS: In almost 3% of all families, individual consultation rates decrease significantly due to family influence. In 11% of the families, individual consultation rates significantly increase due to family influence. While taking into account the health status of family members, family factors can explain family consultation rates. These factors include circumstances such as their economic status and number of children, as well as socialisation conditions such as specific health knowledge and family beliefs. The chance of significant low frequencies of contact due to family influences increases significantly with factors such as, paid employment of parents in the health care sector, low expectations of general practitioners' care for minor ailments and a western cultural background. CONCLUSION: Family circumstances can easily be identified and will add to the understanding of the health complaints of the individual patient in the consulting room. Family circumstances related to health risks often cannot be changed but they can illuminate the reasons for a visit, and mould strategies for prevention, treatment or recovery. Health beliefs, on the other hand, may be influenced by providing specific knowledge

Psychometric properties of the schedules for clinical assessment in neuropsychiatry (SCBN-2.1)

Background: The Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN), the successor of the ninth version of the Present State Examination (PSE-9), is one of the latest instruments developed by the World Health Organisation for the assessment of psychiatric disorders. So far, the psychometric properties have only been established for certain sections of the instrument. The present study is the first to test the psychometric properties of SCAN-2.1 for most of the disorders covered by the SCAN, and was carried out prior to a survey conducted in the Nijmegen Health Area (the Netherlands). Methods: Interviewers were psychology graduates with little clinical experience. Two designs were used. In one design, pairs of independent live interviews with the same respondent were compared (test-retest situation). In the other, ten videotaped interviews by experts were rated by each of the interviewers (standardized situation), and the outcomes were compared with those of the other interviewers as well as with a reference score. Results: In the test-retest situation the re coefficient for diagnostic caseness was qualified as substantial (0.62) and for diagnostic categories and diagnostic groups as moderate to good (0.24 to 0.64). In the standardized situation using videotaped interviews by experts, sensitivity as well as specificity proved to be substantial to almost perfect. The agreement per interviewer with regard to the reference diagnoses ranged from 87% (diagnostic group) to 94% (diagnostic caseness). Agreement on the syndrome level (without duration and interference criteria of DSM-IV) was excellent. Conclusions: Although the instrument is traditionally used by experienced clinicians, this study shows that less experienced (but well trained) interviewers can apply SCAN reliably. Special attention should be paid to the items without explicit interview questions, as they tend to be more sensitive to neglect than the items with interview questions