Text message communication in primary care research: a randomized controlled trial

Background. Text message communication is increasingly used in clinical practice but rarely in research. Particularly in young people, this method of participation in primary care research appears both feasible and acceptable. However, previous experience shows that text messaging for research may lead to lower response rates. Aim. To test the hypothesis that text message communication in primary care research does not lead to lower response rates compared to a paper-based method. Methods. This randomized controlled trial took place in 26 randomly selected practices in Victoria, Australia. Consecutive patients aged 16-24 years attending general practice appointments were recruited as part of a larger study on patients' perspectives. Patients owning a mobile phone were randomized to receive a question about satisfaction with the consultation either by text message or on a card completed before leaving the practice. Logistic regression was used to estimate the effect on the response rate of using text message rather than the card method, adjusting for clustering within practices and for differences in baseline characteristics among participants. Results. In total, 402 of 409 eligible young people agreed to participate and were randomized to either receive a text message (n = 193) or a card enquiry (n = 209). The response rate was 80.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 73.3-87.1%] with text message and 85.6% (95% CI: 79.6-91.7%) with the card. The adjusted odds of responding (odds ratio: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.30-1.27) were not significantly lower in the group using text messaging compared to the group using the card response method. Conclusion. These findings offer new perspectives for use of text message communication to gather information from patients in primary care researc

Outcomes and costs of primary care surveillance and intervention for overweight or obese children: the LEAP 2 randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine whether ascertainment of childhood obesity by surveillance followed by structured secondary prevention in primary care improved outcomes in overweight or mildly obese children

The experience of providing young people attending general practice with an online risk assessment tool to assess their own sexual health risk

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Targeted chlamydia screening has been advocated to reduce chlamydia associated reproductive sequelae. General practitioners are well positioned to play a major role in chlamydia control. The primary aim of this pilot study was to measure the effect of offering an online sexual health assessment tool, <it>Youth Check Your Risk</it>, on chlamydia testing rates among young people attending general practices. The secondary aim was to test the acceptability of the tool among general practitioners and young people.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>General practitioners at three practices in Melbourne, Australia, referred patients aged 16 to 24 years to <it>Youth Check Your Risk </it><url>http://www.checkyourrisk.org.au</url> for use post-consultation between March to October 2007. The proportion of young people tested for chlamydia before and during the implementation of the tool was compared. Acceptability was assessed through a structured interviewer-administered questionnaire with general practitioners, and anonymous online data provided by <it>Youth Check Your Risk </it>users.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The intervention did not result in any significant increases in the proportion of 16 to 24 year old males (2.7% to 3.0%) or females (6.3% to 6.4%) tested for chlamydia. A small increase in the proportion of 16 to 19 year old females tested was seen (4.1% to 7.2%). Of the 2997 patients seen during the intervention phase, 871 (29.1%) were referred to <it>Youth Check Your Risk </it>and 120 used it (13.8%). Major reasons for low referral rates reported by practitioners included lack of time, discomfort with raising the issue of testing, and difficulty in remembering to refer patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Offering an online sexual risk assessment tool in general practice did not significantly increase the proportion of young people tested for chlamydia, with GPs identifying a number of barriers to referring young people to <it>Youth Check Your Risk</it>. Future interventions aimed at increasing chlamydia screening in general practice with the aid of an online risk assessment tool need to identify and overcome barriers to testing.</p

Incentive payments to general practitioners aimed at increasing opportunistic testing of young women for chlamydia: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Financial incentives have been used for many years internationally to improve quality of care in general practice. The aim of this pilot study was to determine if offering general practitioners (GP) a small incentive payment per test would increase chlamydia testing in women aged 16 to 24 years, attending general practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>General practice clinics (n = 12) across Victoria, Australia, were cluster randomized to receive either a $AUD5 payment per chlamydia test or no payment for testing 16 to 24 year old women for chlamydia. Data were collected on the number of chlamydia tests and patient consultations undertaken by each GP over two time periods: 12 month pre-trial and 6 month trial period. The impact of the intervention was assessed using a mixed effects logistic regression model, accommodating for clustering at GP level.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Testing increased from 6.2% (95% CI: 4.2, 8.4) to 8.8% (95% CI: 4.8, 13.0) (p = 0.1) in the control group and from 11.5% (95% CI: 4.6, 18.5) to 13.4% (95% CI: 9.5, 17.5) (p = 0.4) in the intervention group. Overall, the intervention did not result in a significant increase in chlamydia testing in general practice. The odds ratio for an increase in testing in the intervention group compared to the control group was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6, 1.2). Major barriers to increased chlamydia testing reported by GPs included a lack of time, difficulty in remembering to offer testing and a lack of patient awareness around testing.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A small financial incentive alone did not increase chlamydia testing among young women attending general practice. It is possible small incentive payments in conjunction with reminder and feedback systems may be effective, as may higher financial incentive payments. Further research is required to determine if financial incentives can increase testing in Australian general practice, the type and level of financial scheme required and whether incentives needs to be part of a multi-faceted package.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12608000499381.</p

A mobile phone application for the assessment and management of youth mental health problems in primary care: a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Over 75% of mental health problems begin in adolescence and primary care has been identified as the target setting for mental health intervention by the World Health Organisation. The <it>mobiletype </it>program is a mental health assessment and management mobile phone application which monitors mood, stress, coping strategies, activities, eating, sleeping, exercise patterns, and alcohol and cannabis use at least daily, and transmits this information to general practitioners (GPs) via a secure website in summary format for medical review.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a randomised controlled trial in primary care to examine the mental health benefits of the <it>mobiletype </it>program. Patients aged 14 to 24 years were recruited from rural and metropolitan general practices. GPs identified and referred eligible participants (those with mild or more mental health concerns) who were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (where mood, stress, and daily activities were monitored) or the attention comparison group (where only daily activities were monitored). Both groups self-monitored for 2 to 4 weeks and reviewed the monitoring data with their GP. GPs, participants, and researchers were blind to group allocation at randomisation. Participants completed pre-, post-, and 6-week post-test measures of the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale and an Emotional Self Awareness (ESA) Scale.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 163 participants assessed for eligibility, 118 were randomised and 114 participants were included in analyses (intervention group n = 68, comparison group n = 46). Mixed model analyses revealed a significant group by time interaction on ESA with a medium size of effect suggesting that the <it>mobiletype </it>program significantly increases ESA compared to an attention comparison. There was no significant group by time interaction for depression, anxiety, or stress, but a medium to large significant main effect for time for each of these mental health measures. Post-hoc analyses suggested that participation in the RCT lead to enhanced GP mental health care at pre-test and improved mental health outcomes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Monitoring mental health symptoms appears to increase ESA and implementing a mental health program in primary care and providing frequent reminders, clinical resources, and support to GPs substantially improved mental health outcomes for the sample as a whole.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00794222">NCT00794222</a>.</p

'No frills prils' : how Australian general practitioners choose which ACE inhibitor to prescribe

Context: ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) are one of the most commonly prescribed blood pressure lowering medications in Australia. Nearly $85 million dollars is spent by the PBS and patients on the two most popular ACEIs each year. The general patient charge for a month’s supply of an ACEI can vary between$18.48 to $27.94 depending on the ACEI prescribed. The nine ACEIs available in Australia are considered therapeutically equivalent; meaning that each ACEI has the same blood pressure lowering effect and similar side effects as another ACEI. General practitioners (GPs) prescribe a range of ACE inhibitors and to our knowledge, the reasons behind why an individual GP prescribes one ACE inhibitor compared to another are not well understood. Objective: This study aims to explore the factors that influence general practitioners (GPs) to prescribe particular ACE inhibitors. Design: This is a qualitative study that will use in-depth semi-structured interviews with GPs to answer the key research questions. Between 10 and 12 GPs will be recruited to participate in this study. Setting: Australian general practice. Participants: General practitioners. Findings: Pending. Implication(s) for practice: The findings of this research would provide an increased understanding of the factors that shape the way GPs prescribe ACEIs and would have immediate relevance to policy makers looking to decrease the spending on pharmaceuticals. The research findings may also inform current GP practice so that the cost of particular ACEIs can be taken into account during the prescribing process to reduce government spending and out of pocket costs for patients

Do young people's illness beliefs affect healthcare? A systematic review

A successful patient-centered approach in clinical practice implies an understanding of patients' experiences of illness, and therefore of their illness beliefs. This paper presents a systematic review of the literature on young people's common illness beliefs in contemporary Western societies and the extent to which these beliefs have been shown to affect healthcare

'No-frills prils' : GPs' views on drug costs and therapeutic interchange of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors : a qualitative study

Medications form a significant portion of spending in primary health care. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) are among the most prescribed blood pressure medications in general practice. Medications within this class are considered therapeutically equivalent, but the cost of each ACE-I varies. Our aim was to explore cost and other factors that influence general practitioners (GPs) to prescribe a specific ACE-I and understand their views on therapeutic interchange within this drug class. We conducted a qualitative study of Australian GPs using thematic analysis. We found that GPs were aware of therapeutic equivalency within the ACE-I class, but unaware of the cost differences. Although GPs tended to adopt a prescribing preference, they were open to fewer prescribing options if there was a decreased cost to patients and the PBS, or potential to minimise prescribing error. Our findings have immediate relevance for national prescribing policies and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). The wide selection of ACE-Is that are available results in diverse prescribing patterns and may not be cost-effective for patients or the PBS. Restricting the number of drug options within the ACE-I class in primary care appears to be an acceptable drug cost-containment strategy according to our sample of GPs