A systematic review of questionnaires measuring asthma control in children in a primary care population

Several questionnaires are used to measure asthma control in children. The most appropriate tool for use in primary care is not defined. In this systematic review, we evaluated questionnaires used to measure asthma control in children in primary care and determined their usefulness in asthma management. Searches were performed in the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases with end date 24 June 2022. The study population comprised children aged 5–18 years with asthma. Three reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed, using the COSMIN criteria for the measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Studies conducted in primary care were included if a minimum of two questionnaires were compared. Studies in secondary or tertiary care and studies of quality-of-life questionnaires were excluded. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Five publications were included: four observational studies and one sub-study of a randomized controlled trial. A total of 806 children were included (aged 5–18 years). We evaluated the Asthma Control Test (ACT), childhood Asthma Control Test (c-ACT), Asthma APGAR system, NAEPP criteria and Royal College of Physicians’ ‘3 questions’ (RCP3Q). These questionnaires assess different symptoms and domains. The quality of most of the studies was rated ‘intermediate’ or ‘poor’. The majority of the evaluated questionnaires do not show substantial agreement with one another, which makes a comparison challenging. Based on the current review, we suggest that the Asthma APGAR system seems promising as a questionnaire for determining asthma control in children in primary care.</p

Incidence and management of mallet finger in Dutch primary care: a cohort study

Background: A mallet finger (MF) is diagnosed clinically and can be managed in primary care. The actual incidence of MF and how it is managed in primary care is unknown.Aim: To determine the incidence of MF in primary care and to obtain estimates for the proportions of osseous and tendon MF. An additional aim was to gain insight into the management of patients diagnosed with MF in primary care.Design &amp; setting: A cohort study using a healthcare registration database from general practice in the Netherlands.Method:Patients aged ≥18 years with a new diagnosis of MF from 1 January 2015-31 December 2019 were selected using a search algorithm based on International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) coding.Results:In total, 161 cases of MF were identified. The mean incidence was 0.58 per 1000 person-years. A radiograph was taken in 58% (n = 93) of cases; 23% (n = 37) of cases had an osseous MF. The most applied strategies were referral to secondary care (45%) or conservative treatment in GP practice (43%). Overall, 7% were referred to a paramedical professional.Conclusion: On average, a Dutch GP assesses ≥1 patient with MF per year. Since only a minimal number of patients required surgical treatment and a limited number of GPs requested radiography, the recommendation in the guidelines to perform radiography in all patients with MF should potentially be reconsidered. The purpose of requesting radiographs should not be to distinguish between a tendinogenic or osseous MF, but to assess whether there is a possible indication for surgery

Incidence and management of mallet finger in Dutch primary care: a cohort study

Background: A mallet finger (MF) is diagnosed clinically and can be managed in primary care. The actual incidence of MF and how it is managed in primary care is unknown.Aim: To determine the incidence of MF in primary care and to obtain estimates for the proportions of osseous and tendon MF. An additional aim was to gain insight into the management of patients diagnosed with MF in primary care.Design &amp; setting: A cohort study using a healthcare registration database from general practice in the Netherlands.Method:Patients aged ≥18 years with a new diagnosis of MF from 1 January 2015-31 December 2019 were selected using a search algorithm based on International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) coding.Results:In total, 161 cases of MF were identified. The mean incidence was 0.58 per 1000 person-years. A radiograph was taken in 58% (n = 93) of cases; 23% (n = 37) of cases had an osseous MF. The most applied strategies were referral to secondary care (45%) or conservative treatment in GP practice (43%). Overall, 7% were referred to a paramedical professional.Conclusion: On average, a Dutch GP assesses ≥1 patient with MF per year. Since only a minimal number of patients required surgical treatment and a limited number of GPs requested radiography, the recommendation in the guidelines to perform radiography in all patients with MF should potentially be reconsidered. The purpose of requesting radiographs should not be to distinguish between a tendinogenic or osseous MF, but to assess whether there is a possible indication for surgery

Reasons for unsuccessful recruitment of children with atopic dermatitis in primary care in the Netherlands to a cohort study with an embedded pragmatic, randomised controlled open-label trial:a survey

Background The Rotterdam Eczema Study was an observational cohort study with an embedded pragmatic randomised controlled open-label trial. It was conducted in children with atopic dermatitis (AD) in the Dutch primary care system. The objective of the trial was to determine whether a potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) is more effective than a low-potency TCS. Objective We are aiming to communicate transparently about the poor recruitment for the trial part and to explore the reasons why recruitment was weak. Design We used a survey to find out what patients in the cohort did when they experienced a flare-up. Methods Descriptive statistics were used to present the baseline characteristics of participants in the trial and the results of the survey. Results In total, 367 patients were included in the cohort. Of these, 32 were randomly assigned to a trial treatment; they had a median age of 4.0 years (IQR 2.0-9.8). A total of 69 of the 86 children (80.2%) who could participate in the survey responded. 39 (56.5%) suffered a flare-up during the follow-up (making them potentially eligible for inclusion in the trial). 26 out of 39 (66.7%) increased their use of an emollient and/or TCS themselves. Only 12 of the 39 (30.7%) contacted their general practitioner (GP) as instructed in the study protocol, but 8 out of these 12 did not meet the inclusion criteria for the trial. Conclusion The main reason why cohort participants did not take part in the trial was that they did not contact their GPs when they experienced an AD flare-up. Furthermore, the majority of patients who contacted their GPs did not match the inclusion criteria of the trial. We expect that the lessons learnt from this study will be useful when developing future studies of children with AD in primary care.</p

Reasons for unsuccessful recruitment of children with atopic dermatitis in primary care in the Netherlands to a cohort study with an embedded pragmatic, randomised controlled open-label trial:a survey

Background The Rotterdam Eczema Study was an observational cohort study with an embedded pragmatic randomised controlled open-label trial. It was conducted in children with atopic dermatitis (AD) in the Dutch primary care system. The objective of the trial was to determine whether a potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) is more effective than a low-potency TCS. Objective We are aiming to communicate transparently about the poor recruitment for the trial part and to explore the reasons why recruitment was weak. Design We used a survey to find out what patients in the cohort did when they experienced a flare-up. Methods Descriptive statistics were used to present the baseline characteristics of participants in the trial and the results of the survey. Results In total, 367 patients were included in the cohort. Of these, 32 were randomly assigned to a trial treatment; they had a median age of 4.0 years (IQR 2.0-9.8). A total of 69 of the 86 children (80.2%) who could participate in the survey responded. 39 (56.5%) suffered a flare-up during the follow-up (making them potentially eligible for inclusion in the trial). 26 out of 39 (66.7%) increased their use of an emollient and/or TCS themselves. Only 12 of the 39 (30.7%) contacted their general practitioner (GP) as instructed in the study protocol, but 8 out of these 12 did not meet the inclusion criteria for the trial. Conclusion The main reason why cohort participants did not take part in the trial was that they did not contact their GPs when they experienced an AD flare-up. Furthermore, the majority of patients who contacted their GPs did not match the inclusion criteria of the trial. We expect that the lessons learnt from this study will be useful when developing future studies of children with AD in primary care.</p

Adequate use of asthma inhalation medication in children: more involvement of the parents seems useful

Background. Asthma and other chronic airway diseases can be effectively treated by inhaler therapy. Inhaler therapy depends on appropriate use of the inhaler. This study evaluates the knowledge among Dutch children and their parents regarding asthma inhaler therapy and appropriateness of its use. Findings. Five general practices selected all children aged 0 to 12 years on asthma inhalation medication. Children demonstrated inhaler use and were interviewed with their parents. 46 subjects were enrolled; mean age 5.5 years (SD 3.4) years; 26 (57%) were boys. Of the children using one inhaler only, 70% used the inhaler as indicated and of those using more than one inhaler 46%. On average 2.6 mistakes were made during demonstration of the technique, and 2 mistakes were reported in the interview. In total, 87% of the parents decided when and how the inhaler had to be used. Spacer cleaning was performed correctly by 49%; 26% reported a correct way of assessing how many doses were remaining. Conclusion. Dutch children make essential mistakes related to inhaler use that are easy to avoid. We recommend a better explanation and demonstration of the technique, and recommend involvement of the parents during instruction

Do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during GP training?

Abstract Background Using malpractice claims cases as vignettes is a promising approach for improving clinical reasoning education (CRE), as malpractice claims can provide a variety of content- and context-rich examples. However, the effect on learning of adding information about a malpractice claim, which may evoke a deeper emotional response, is not yet clear. This study examined whether knowing that a diagnostic error resulted in a malpractice claim affects diagnostic accuracy and self-reported confidence in the diagnosis of future cases. Moreover, suitability of using erroneous cases with and without a malpractice claim for CRE, as judged by participants, was evaluated. Methods In the first session of this two-phased, within-subjects experiment, 81 first-year residents of general practice (GP) were exposed to both erroneous cases with (M) and erroneous cases without (NM) malpractice claim information, derived from a malpractice claims database. Participants rated suitability of the cases for CRE on a five-point Likert scale. In the second session, one week later, participants solved four different cases with the same diagnoses. Diagnostic accuracy was measured with three questions, scored on a 0–1 scale: (1) What is your next step? (2) What is your differential diagnosis? (3) What is your most probable diagnosis and what is your level of certainty on this? Both subjective suitability and diagnostic accuracy scores were compared between the versions (M and NM) using repeated measures ANOVA. Results There were no differences in diagnostic accuracy parameters (M vs. NM next step: 0.79 vs. 0.77, p = 0.505; differential diagnosis 0.68 vs. 0.75, p = 0.072; most probable diagnosis 0.52 vs. 0.57, p = 0.216) and self-reported confidence (53.7% vs. 55.8% p = 0.390) of diagnoses previously seen with or without malpractice claim information. Subjective suitability- and complexity scores for the two versions were similar (suitability: 3.68 vs. 3.84, p = 0.568; complexity 3.71 vs. 3.88, p = 0.218) and significantly increased for higher education levels for both versions. Conclusion The similar diagnostic accuracy rates between cases studied with or without malpractice claim information suggests both versions are equally effective for CRE in GP training. Residents judged both case versions to be similarly suitable for CRE; both were considered more suitable for advanced than for novice learners

General practitioners' explanation and advice on childhood eczema and factors influencing their treatment strategy:A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is common in children and the majority of children can be treated by the general practitioner (GP). Various factors can influence the GP's treatment strategy and may lead to less effective treatment. The objective is to gain insight into the treatment goal, treatment strategy, explanation and advice given by GPs when dealing with AD in children and to explore which factors play a role in the choice of pharmacological treatment. METHODS: Semi‐structured interviews in primary care in the Netherlands were audio‐recorded and transcribed. All data were analysed according to the six‐steps approach of inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 16 GPs. Treatment goals mainly focussed on the short term. GPs discussed the importance of emollient use and emphasised emollients as the basis of treatment. We found that several factors played a role in prescribing topical corticosteroids (TCS); severity of the AD, age of the child, skin type, corticophobia among parents and GPs, experience of side effects and dermatological experience. GPs reported giving limited advice about the use of TCS and prescribed medication that is not recommended by the guideline. CONCLUSION: Various factors seem to influence GPs' treatment strategy for AD in children. More attention and education about the use and safety of TCS in children during GP training, continuous medical education, probably improve treatment in line with guidelines and can lead to more confidence and knowledge about TCS among GPs, which ultimately may improve the education and self‐management of patients