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

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

Cost-effectiveness of an app-based treatment for urinary incontinence in comparison with care-as-usual in Dutch general practice:a pragmatic randomised controlled trial over 12 months

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of app-based treatment for female stress, urgency, or mixed urinary incontinence (UI) compared to care-as-usual in Dutch 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. 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: Costs and cost-effectiveness and -utility were assessed from a societal perspective, based on Incontinence Impact Adjusted Life Years (IIALYs), Quality Adjusted Life years (QALYs) and medical, non-medical and productivity costs. Information on costs was obtained with the iMCQ and iPCQ questionnaires (Medical Consumption and Productivity Cost Questionnaires). RESULTS: 262 women randomised equally to app or care-as-usual; 89 (68%) and 83 (63%) attended follow-up. Costs were lower for app-based treatment with €-161 (95%CI: -180 to -151) per year. Cost-effectiveness showed small mean differences in effect for IIALY (0.04) and QALY (-0.03) and thus larger ICER (-€3,696) and ICUR (€6,379) (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-utility Ratios). CONCLUSION: App-based treatment is a cost-effective alternative to care-as-usual for women with UI in Dutch primary care

Effectiveness and costs of a new framework for selecting absorbent urinary incontinence products compared with current practice:a cohort study

Objectives To improve continence care in the Netherlands, a new framework has been developed in which a shift has been made from incontinence severity as the sole criterion for selecting incontinence products to a focus on patient need for daily life activities. The impact of the framework on daily care has not been assessed. We aimed to compare treatment effectiveness and costs between participants who did and did not undergo re-evaluation according to the new framework. Design Cohort study Setting Twelve pharmacies in the Netherlands Participants Existing users of absorbent incontinence materials for urinary incontinence. Interventions Participants were offered the option to have their incontinence products re-evaluated within the new framework at their pharmacy. Primary and secondary outcome measures Effectiveness and cost outcomes were assessed at 3 and 6 months through questionnaires. These questionnaires included the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life Module, ICIQ Urinary Incontinence Short Form, ICIQ Absorbent Pads, questions about satisfaction and the iPCQ and iMCQ. Results 303 users consented and 279 completed the baseline questionnaire. Of these participants, 72 agreed to a re-evaluation of their incontinence materials. There was a small improvement at 3 months in the re-evaluation group compared with the other group on most outcomes. However, these improvements were not clinically relevant. Moreover, these differences did not change much from 3 to 6 months. Small differences were also observed in the changes in costs, but with very wide CIs on both sides of zero (euro99.38; 95% CI -633.48 to 832.23). Conclusions The current study showed no clinically relevant effect of a newly implemented framework for selecting incontinence materials in pharmacies when compared with an existing method. Given that the study also showed no differences in effectiveness and costs, introducing the new framework in pharmacies may not lead to better incontinence care.</p