Aktuelle Fragen des ungarischen Handelsrechts

Series: Arbeitspapiere des Forschungsinstituts für mittel- und osteuropäisches Wirtschaftsrech

General practitioners' attitudes towards research in primary care: qualitative results of a cross sectional study

BACKGROUND: Research in General Practice requires the participation of General practitioners (GPs). In Germany there is little tradition of research in this field, and GPs are not used to be participants in research. Little is known about German GPs attitudes towards research. Therefore the aim of our study was to assess the willingness of German General Practitioners to participate in primary care research and their attitude towards research in general practice. The results should enable a more successful approach to GPs in further studies. METHODS: Cross sectional study using semi-structured interviews with a random sample of 76 General Practitioners who participate in the teaching of medical students at the University of Heidelberg. RESULTS: Despite little experience, over 85 % of GPs appreciated research in their field. Important reasons for scepticism about research were the gap between theoretical research and practical work of GPs and the domination of research by specialists. Main barriers for participation are clinical workload, administrative overload and the newly introduced Disease Management Programs. The highest motivation for GPs to participate in research emanates from the will to substantiate their quality of care with solid research data. CONCLUSIONS: Financial incentives and personal support e.g. with study nurses are certainly necessary to establish a research culture and to overcome main barriers against participation. The most successful approach to motivate GPs to participate is to convince them that research documents their quality of care. This data may reflect the facts on which the financial resources are provided in the future health care system

Integration of Complementary and Alternative Medicine into Family Practices in Germany: Results of a National Survey

More than two-thirds of patients in Germany use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) provided either by physicians or non-medical practitioners (“Heilpraktiker”). There is little information about the number of family physicians (FPs) providing CAM. Given the widespread public interest in the use of CAM, this study aimed to ascertain the use of and attitude toward CAM among FPs in Germany. A postal questionnaire developed based on qualitatively derived data was sent to 3000 randomly selected FPs in Germany. A reminder letter including a postcard (containing a single question about CAM use in practice and reasons for non-particpation in the survey) was sent to all FPs who had not returned the questionnaire. Of the 3000 FPs, 1027 (34%) returned the questionnaire and 444 (15%) returned the postcard. Altogether, 886 of the 1471 responding FPs (60%) reported using CAM in their practice. A positive attitude toward CAM was indicated by 503 FPs (55%), a rather negative attitude by 127 FPs (14%). Chirotherapy, relaxation and neural therapy were rated as most beneficial CAM therapies by FPs, whereas neural therapy, phytotherapy and acupuncture were the most commonly used therapies in German family practices. This survey clearly demonstrates that CAM is highly valued by many FPs and is already making a substantial contribution to first-contact primary care in Germany. Therefore, education and research about CAM should be increased. Furthermore, with the provision of CAM by FPs, the role of non-medical CAM practitioners within the German healthcare system is to be questioned

Rationale, design and conduct of a comprehensive evaluation of a primary care based intervention to improve the quality of life of osteoarthritis patients. The PraxArt-project: a cluster randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN87252339] ; study protocol

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) has a high prevalence in primary care. Conservative, guideline orientated approaches aiming at improving pain treatment and increasing physical activity, have been proven to be effective in several contexts outside the primary care setting, as for instance the Arthritis Self management Programs (ASMPs). But it remains unclear if these comprehensive evidence based approaches can improve patients' quality of life if they are provided in a primary care setting. Methods/Design: PraxArt is a cluster randomised controlled trial with GPs as the unit of randomisation. The aim of the study is to evaluate the impact of a comprehensive evidence based medical education of GPs on individual care and patients' quality of life. 75 GPs were randomised either to intervention group I or II or to a control group. Each GP will include 15 patients suffering from osteoarthritis according to the criteria of ACR. In intervention group I GPs will receive medical education and patient education leaflets including a physical exercise program. In intervention group II the same is provided, but in addition a practice nurse will be trained to monitor via monthly telephone calls adherence to GPs prescriptions and advices and ask about increasing pain and possible side effects of medication. In the control group no intervention will be applied at all. Main outcome measurement for patients' QoL is the GERMAN-AIMS2-SF questionnaire. In addition data about patients' satisfaction (using a modified EUROPEP-tool), medication, health care utilization, comorbidity, physical activity and depression (using PHQ-9) will be retrieved. Measurements (pre data collection) will take place in months I-III, starting in June 2005. Post data collection will be performed after 6 months. Discussion: Despite the high prevalence and increasing incidence, comprehensive and evidence based treatment approaches for OA in a primary care setting are neither established nor evaluated in Germany. If the evaluation of the presented approach reveals a clear benefit it is planned to provide this GP-centred interventions on a much larger scale

ELSID-diabetes study-evaluation of a large scale implementation of disease management programmes for patients with type 2 diabetes. Rationale, design and conduct : a study protocol

Background: Diabetes model projects in different regions of Germany including interventions such as quality circles, patient education and documentation of medical findings have shown improvements of HbA1c levels, blood pressure and occurrence of hypoglycaemia in before-after studies (without control group). In 2002 the German Ministry of Health defined legal regulations for the introduction of nationwide disease management programs (DMP) to improve the quality of care in chronically ill patients. In April 2003 the first DMP for patients with type 2 diabetes was accredited. The evaluation of the DMP is essential and has been made obligatory in Germany by the Fifth Book of Social Code. The aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness of DMP by example of type 2 diabetes in the primary care setting of two German federal states (Rheinland-Pfalz and Sachsen-Anhalt). Methods/Design: The study is three-armed: a prospective cluster-randomized comparison of two interventions (DMP 1 and DMP 2) against routine care without DMP as control group. In the DMP group 1 the patients are treated according to the current situation within the German-Diabetes-DMP. The DMP group 2 represents diabetic care within ideally implemented DMP providing additional interventions (e.g. quality circles, outreach visits). According to a sample size calculation a sample size of 200 GPs (each GP including 20 patients) will be required for the comparison of DMP 1 and DMP 2 considering possible drop-outs. For the comparison with routine care 4000 patients identified by diabetic tracer medication and age (> 50 years) will be analyzed. Discussion: This study will evaluate the effectiveness of the German Diabetes-DMP compared to a Diabetes-DMP providing additional interventions and routine care in the primary care setting of two different German federal states

Secondary Pharmacotherapeutic Prevention among German Primary Care Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease

Background. The aim of the study was to determine the secondary preventive medical supply of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) in German primary care. Methods and Results. A population-based case control study was conducted using electronic medical records of patients extracted from the CONTENT primary care database of Heidelberg, Germany, between April 2007 and March 2010. The prescription rates of cardiovascular medication among symptomatic PAD patients were analysed by means of the ATC classification and compared with those of patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). 479 cases with PAD and 958 sex- and age-matched control CVD patients were identified. PAD patients showed significantly lower prescription rates for cardiac agents (21.7% versus 37%), β-blockers (50.1% versus. 66.2%), and lipid-lowering agents (50.3% versus 55.9%) compared to CVD patients. In contrast, significantly more prescriptions of antidiabetic agents (28.2% versus 20.3%), particularly insulin and analogues (12.5% versus 8%), and calcium channel blockers (29.2% versus 24.3%) were found in PAD patients. Low-dose aspirin use among both PAD and CVD patients was underestimated, as it is available without a prescription. Conclusions. Optimal pharmacotherapeutical care of patients with PAD requires more intensive cardioprotective medication in primary care settings

A comparison of the workload of rural and urban primary care physicians in Germany: analysis of a questionnaire survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many western countries are facing an existing or imminent shortage of primary care physicians especially in rural areas. In Germany, working in rural areas is often thought to be associated with more working hours, a higher number of patients and a lower income than working in urban areas. These perceptions might be key reasons for the shortage. The aim of this analysis was to explore if working time, number of treated patients per week or proportion of privately insured patients vary between rural and urban areas in Germany using two different definitions of rurality within a sample of primary care physicians including general practitioners, general internists and paediatricians.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a secondary analysis of pre-collected data raised by a questionnaire that was sent to a representative random sample of 1500 primary care physicians chosen by data of the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians from all federal states in Germany. We employed two different methods of defining rurality; firstly, level of rurality as rated by physicians themselves (urban area, small town, rural area); secondly, rurality defined according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>This analysis was based upon questionnaire data from 715 physicians. Primary care physicians in single-handed practices in rural areas worked on average four hours more per week than their urban counterparts (p < 0.05). Physicians' gender, the number of patients treated per week and the type of practice (single/group handed) were significantly related to the number of working hours. Neither the proportion of privately insured patients nor the number of patients seen per week differed significantly between rural and urban areas when applying the self-rated classification of rurality.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Overall this analysis identified few differences between urban and rural primary care physician working conditions. To counter future misdistribution of primary care, students should receive practical experience in rural areas to get more practical knowledge on working conditions.</p

Differences in the prevalence of hospitalizations and utilization of emergency outpatient services for ambulatory care sensitive conditions between asylum-seeking children and children of the general population: a cross-sectional medical records study (2015)

Lichtl C, Lutz T, Szecsenyi J, Bozorgmehr K. Differences in the prevalence of hospitalizations and utilization of emergency outpatient services for ambulatory care sensitive conditions between asylum-seeking children and children of the general population: a cross-sectional medical records study (2015). BMC Health Services Research. 2017;17(1): 731

Differences in the prevalence of hospitalizations and utilization of emergency outpatient services for ambulatory care sensitive conditions between asylum-seeking children and children of the general population: a cross-sectional medical records study (2015)

Background Hospitalizations for ambulatory care sensitive (ACS) conditions are established indicators for the availability and quality of ambulatory care. We aimed to assess the differences between asylum-seeking children and children of the general population in a German city with respect to (i) the prevalence of ACS hospitalizations, and (ii) the utilization of emergency outpatient services for ACS conditions. Methods Using anonymous account data, all children admitted to the University Hospital Heidelberg in 2015 were included in our study. A unique cost unit distinguished asylum seekers residing in a nearby reception center (exposed) from the children of the general population. We adapted international lists of ACS conditions and calculated the prevalence of ACS hospitalizations and the utilization of emergency outpatient services for ACS conditions, attributable fractions among the exposed (Afe) and the population attributable fraction among total admissions (PAF) for each outcome. Differences in the prevalence of each outcome between exposed and controls were analyzed in logistic regression models adjusted for sex, age group and quarterly admission. Results Of the 32,015 admissions in 2015, 19.9% (6287) were from inpatient and 80.1% (25,638) from outpatient care. In inpatient care, 9.8% (622) of all admissions were hospitalizations for ACS conditions. The Afe of ACS hospitalizations was 46.57%, the PAF was 1.12%. Emergency service use for ACS conditions could be identified in 8.3% (3088) of all admissions (Afe: 79.57%, PAF: 5.08%). The odds ratio (OR) of asylum-seeking children being hospitalized for ACS conditions in comparison to the control group was 1.81 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.02; 3.2]. The OR of the asylumseeking population compared to the general population for the utilization of emergency service use for ACS conditions was 4.93 [95% CI: 4.11; 5.91]. Conclusions Asylum-seeking children had significantly higher odds of ACS hospitalization and of utilization of emergency outpatient services for ACS conditions. Using the concept of ACS conditions allowed measuring the strength of primary care provided to this local asylum-seeking population. This approach could help to compare the strength of primary care provision in different locations, and allow an objective

The care of patients with subthreshold depression in primary care: Is it all that bad? A qualitative study on the views of general practitioners and patients

Contains fulltext : 53656.pdf ( ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Studies show that subthreshold depression is highly prevalent in primary care, has impact on the quality of life and causes immense health care costs. Although this points to the clinical relevance of subthreshold depression, contradictory results exist regarding the often self-remitting course of this state. However, first steps towards quality improvement in the care of subthreshold depressive patients are being undertaken. This makes it important to gather information from both a GPs' and a patients' point of view concerning the clinical relevance as well as the status quo of diagnosis and treatment in order to appraise the need for quality improvement research. METHOD: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews for the questioning of 20 GPs and 20 patients with subthreshold depression on aspects of clinical relevance and on the status quo of diagnosis and treatment. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed on a content analytical theoretical background using Atlas.ti software. RESULTS: Most of the GPs found subthreshold depression to be clinically significant. Although some problems in diagnosis and treatment were mentioned, the GPs had sensible diagnostic and treatment strategies at hand which resulted from the long and trustful relationship with the patients and which corresponded to the patients' expectations. The patients rather expected their GP to listen to them than to take specific actions towards symptom relief and, in the main, were satisfied with the GPs' care. CONCLUSION: The study shows that subthreshold depression is a clinically relevant issue for GPs but raises the possibility that quality improvement might not be as necessary as past studies showed. Further quantitative research using larger random samples is needed to determine the effectiveness of the strategies used by the GPs, patients' satisfaction with these strategies and the course of these patients' symptoms in primary care