What factors empower general practitioners for early cancer diagnosis? A 20-country European Delphi Study

Funding Information: The publication of the article in OA mode was financially supported by HEAL-Link. Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s), 2022.Background: Some symptoms are recognised as red flags for cancer, causing the General Practitioner (GP) to refer the patient for investigation without delay. However, many early symptoms of cancer are vague and unspecific, and in these cases, a delay in referral risks a diagnosis of cancer that is too late. Empowering GPs in their management of patients that may have cancer is likely to lead to more timely cancer diagnoses. Aim: To identify the factors that affect European GPs' empowerment in making an early diagnosis of cancer. Methods: This was a Delphi study involving GPs in 20 European countries. We presented GPs with 52 statements representing factors that could empower GPs to increase the number of early cancer diagnoses. Over three Delphi rounds, we asked GPs to indicate the clinical relevance of each statement on a Likert scale. The final list of statements indicated those that were considered by consensus to be the most relevant. Results: In total, 53 GPs from 20 European countries completed the Delphi process, out of the 68 GPs who completed round one. Twelve statements satisfied the pre-defined criteria for relevance. Five of the statements related to screening and four to the primary/secondary care interface. The other selected statements concerned information technology (IT) and GPs' working conditions. Statements relating to training, skills and working efficiency were not considered priority areas. Conclusion: GPs consider that system factors relating to screening, the primary-secondary care interface, IT and their working conditions are key to enhancing their empowerment in patients that could have cancer. These findings provide the basis for seeking actions and policies that will support GPs in their efforts to achieve timely cancer diagnosis.publishersversionPeer reviewe

What factors empower general practitioners for early cancer diagnosis? A 20-country European Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND Some symptoms are recognised as red flags for cancer, causing the General Practitioner (GP) to refer the patient for investigation without delay. However, many early symptoms of cancer are vague and unspecific, and in these cases, a delay in referral risks a diagnosis of cancer that is too late. Empowering GPs in their management of patients that may have cancer is likely to lead to more timely cancer diagnoses. AIM To identify the factors that affect European GPs' empowerment in making an early diagnosis of cancer. METHODS This was a Delphi study involving GPs in 20 European countries. We presented GPs with 52 statements representing factors that could empower GPs to increase the number of early cancer diagnoses. Over three Delphi rounds, we asked GPs to indicate the clinical relevance of each statement on a Likert scale.The final list of statements indicated those that were considered by consensus to be the most relevant. RESULTS In total, 53 GPs from 20 European countries completed the Delphi process, out of the 68 GPs who completed round one. Twelve statements satisfied the pre-defined criteria for relevance. Five of the statements related to screening and four to the primary/secondary care interface. The other selected statements concerned information technology (IT) and GPs' working conditions. Statements relating to training, skills and working efficiency were not considered priority areas. CONCLUSION GPs consider that system factors relating to screening, the primary-secondary care interface, IT and their working conditions are key to enhancing their empowerment in patients that could have cancer. These findings provide the basis for seeking actions and policies that will support GPs in their efforts to achieve timely cancer diagnosis

Why do European primary care physicians sometimes not think of, or act on, a possible cancer diagnosis? : A qualitative study

Funding The Swedish application for ethical approval was funded by the Jämtland Cancer and Nursing Foundation. The study had no other external fundingPeer reviewedPostprin

General practitioners' deprescribing decisions in older adults with polypharmacy: a case vignette study in 31 countries.

BACKGROUND General practitioners (GPs) should regularly review patients' medications and, if necessary, deprescribe, as inappropriate polypharmacy may harm patients' health. However, deprescribing can be challenging for physicians. This study investigates GPs' deprescribing decisions in 31 countries. METHODS In this case vignette study, GPs were invited to participate in an online survey containing three clinical cases of oldest-old multimorbid patients with potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. Patients differed in terms of dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) and were presented with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case, we asked GPs if they would deprescribe in their usual practice. We calculated proportions of GPs who reported they would deprescribe and performed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association between history of CVD and level of dependency on GPs' deprescribing decisions. RESULTS Of 3,175 invited GPs, 54% responded (N = 1,706). The mean age was 50 years and 60% of respondents were female. Despite differences across GP characteristics, such as age (with older GPs being more likely to take deprescribing decisions), and across countries, overall more than 80% of GPs reported they would deprescribe the dosage of at least one medication in oldest-old patients (> 80 years) with polypharmacy irrespective of history of CVD. The odds of deprescribing was higher in patients with a higher level of dependency in ADL (OR =1.5, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.80) and absence of CVD (OR =3.04, 95%CI 2.58 to 3.57). INTERPRETATION The majority of GPs in this study were willing to deprescribe one or more medications in oldest-old multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Willingness was higher in patients with increased dependency in ADL and lower in patients with CVD

Diabetes-related quality of life in six European countries measured with the DOQ-30

Background The quantification of diabetes-related quality of life (DR-QoL) is an essential step in making Type 2 Diabetes (T2DM) self-management arrangements. The European General Practitioners Research Network (EGPRN) initiated the EUROBSTACLE study to develop a broadly conceptualised DR-QoL instrument for diverse cultural and ethnic groups; high and low-income countries. In 2016 the Diabetes Obstacles Questionnaire-30 (DOQ-30) was introduced. Objectives The research aimed to study obstacles a patient with diabetes (PWD) may face in everyday life. First, we assessed how descriptive and clinical characteristics and the residential country were associated with the obstacles. Secondly, we calculated the proportion of respondents who expressed obstacles. Methods Data were collected in 2009 in a cross-sectional survey in Belgium, France, Estonia, Serbia, Slovenia, and Turkey. Multiple linear regressions were computed to detect associations between descriptive and clinical characteristics, residential country, and obstacles. Percentages of respondents who perceived obstacles were calculated. Results We found that although descriptive and clinical characteristics varied to quite a great extent, they were weakly associated with the perception of obstacles. The residential country was most often associated with the existence of some obstacle. The highest percent (48%) of all respondents perceived ‘Uncertainty about Insulin Use’ as an obstacle. Conclusion Descriptive and clinical characteristics were weakly associated with perceived obstacles. However, the residential country plays an essential role in the decline of the QoL of PWDs. Education of both PWDs and healthcare professionals (HCPs) plays an essential role in countering the fear of insulin

Development and validation of the short version of the diabetes obstacles questionnaire (DOQ-30) in six European countries

International audienc

An international case-vignette study to assess general practitioners’ willingness to deprescribe (LESS)

Background: Globally, many oldest-old (>80 years of age) suffer from several chronic conditions and take multiple medications. Ideally, their general practitioners (GPs) regularly and systematically search for inappropriate medications and, if necessary, deprescribe those. However, deprescribing is challenging due to numerous barriers not only within patients, but also within GPs. Research questions: How does the willingness to deprescribe in oldest-old with polypharmacy differ in GPs from different countries? What factors do GPs in different contexts perceive as important for deprescribing? Method: We assess GPs' willingness to deprescribe and the factors GPs perceive to influence their deprescribing decisions in a cross-sectional survey using case-vignettes of oldest-old patients with polypharmacy. We approach GPs in 28 European countries as well as in Israel, Brazil and New Zealand through national coordinators, who administer the survey in their GP network. The case vignettes differ in how dependent patients are and whether or not they have a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case vignette, GPs are asked if and which medication they would deprescribe. GPs further rate to what extent pre-defined factors influence their deprescribe decisions. We will compare the willingness to deprescribe and the factors influencing deprescribing across countries. Multilevel models will be used to analyze the proportions of the deprescribed medications per case along the continuum of dependency and history of CVD and to analyze the factors perceived as influencing deprescribing decisions. Results: As of early-July 2018, the survey has been distributed in 14 countries and >650 responses have been returned. We will present first results at the conference. Conclusions: First, assessing GPs’ willingness to deprescribe and comparing the factors influencing GPs’ deprescribing decisions across countries will allow an understanding of the expected variation in the willingness to deprescribe across different contexts. Second, it will enable the tailoring of specific interventions that might facilitate deprescribing in oldest-old patients. Points for discussion: How can we explain differences across countries? How can the results be translated into practice in order to help GPs to optimize deprescribing practices? What factors could help GPs to implement deprescribing in oldest-old patients with polypharmacy