Search

Background: Almost onein four women in Australia experience an unintended pregnancy during their lifetime; of these, approximately 30% currently end in abortion. Although early medical abortion (EMA) up to 9weeks gestation is becoming more widely available in Australia, it is still not commonly offered in primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate the barriers and facilitators to the provision of EMA in primary care., Methods: A sample of 150 general practitioners (GPs) and 150 registered nurses (RNs) working in Australia responded to a best-worst scaling survey designed to answer the following question: what are the most important facilitators and barriers to the provision of EMA in primary care?, Results: GPs believe that the lack of clinical guidelines, the amount of information provision and counselling required, and the fact that women who are not their patients may not return for follow-up are the most important barriers. For RNs, these three barriers, together with the stigma of being known as being involved in the provision of EMA, are the most important barriers. The formation of a community of practice to support the provision of EMA was identified by both professions as the most important facilitator., Conclusions: Having access to a community of practice, enhanced training and reducing stigma will encourage the provision of EMA. Although clinical guidelines are available, they need to be effectively disseminated, implemented and endorsed by peak bodies. Primary care practices should consider using task sharingand developing patient resources to facilitate the provision of information and counselling.

Objective: Most Australian women access contraception through general practitioners (GPs) but choose oral methods rather than long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCS). The Australian Contraceptive ChOice pRoject (ACCORd) successfully tested a complex intervention for LARC uptake. We aimed to explore the critical elements of this intervention to increase LARC uptake., Design: ACCORd was a cluster randomised control trial conducted in 57 GP clinics in Melbourne, Australia. To explore intervention impact, fidelity checks (n=21 GPs) and interviews with 37 GPs and 40 patients were undertaken 12 months after initial consultations. Data were inductively coded, thematically analysed and mapped to Normalization Process Theory constructs., Results: Doctors understood the importance of effectiveness-based contraceptive counselling (EBCC). GPs demonstrated cognitive engagement in the promotion of LARC and some appreciated the rapid referral pathways. GPs and women valued the effectiveness approach. GPs held varying views about having a rapid referral pathway, with many already having established pathways in place. Some GPs viewed intrauterine device insertion costs or insertion training as barriers to ongoing practice. Most GPs and women saw the ACCORD model as effective and sustainable., Conclusions: GP training in EBCC and the use of rapid referral pathways were critical features of an effective sustainable model for successful uptake of LARCs in primary care., Implications for Public Health: Improving Australian women's access to and use of LARCs is sustainable with EBCC training and support for general practitioners., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Introduction: The increased use of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), such as intrauterine devices and hormonal implants, has the potential to reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion rates. However, use of LARCs in Australia is very low, despite clinical practice guidance and statements by national and international peak bodies advocating their increased use. This protocol paper describes the Australian Contraceptive ChOice pRojet (ACCORd), a cluster randomised control trial that aims to test whether an educational intervention targeting general practitioners (GPs) and establishing a rapid referral service are a cost-effective means of increasing LARC uptake., Methods and Analysis: The ACCORd intervention is adapted from the successful US Contraceptive CHOICE study and involves training GPs to provide 'LARC First' structured contraceptive counselling to women seeking contraception, and implementing rapid referral pathways for LARC insertion. Letters of invitation will be sent to 600 GPs in South-Eastern Melbourne. Using randomisation stratified by whether the GP inserts LARCs or not, a total of 54 groups will be allocated to the intervention (online 'LARC First' training and rapid referral pathways) or control arm (usual care). We aim to recruit 729 women from each arm. The primary outcome will be the number of LARCs inserted; secondary outcomes include the women's choice of contraceptive method and quality of life (Short Form Health Survey, SF-36). The costs and outcomes of the intervention and control will be compared in a cost-effectiveness analysis., Ethics and Dissemination: The ACCORd study has been approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee: CF14/3990-2014002066 and CF16/188-2016000080. Any protocol modifications will be communicated to Ethics Committee and Trial Registration registry. The authors plan to disseminate trial outcomes through formal academic pathways comprising journal articles, nation and international conferences and reports, as well as using more 'popular' strategies including seminars, workshops and media engagements., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12615001346561., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objectives: To determine how women and physicians rate individual characteristics of contraceptives., Methods: Discrete choice experiments are used in health economics to elicit preferences for healthcare products. A choice experiment uses hypothetical scenarios to determine which individual factors influence choice. Women and general practitioners (GPs) were shown individual characteristics of contraceptives, not always matching existing methods, and chose the best and worst features., Results: Two hundred women, mean age 36, 71% using contraception, were presented with descriptions of 16 possible methods and asked to indicate their preference for individual characteristics. One hundred and sixty-two GPs, mostly women, also completed 16 descriptions. Longer duration of action was most favoured by both, followed by lighter periods with less pain or amenorrhoea. The least attractive features for women were heavier and more painful periods, high cost, irregular periods, low efficacy (10% failure) and weight gain of 3 kg. GPs ranked a 10% pregnancy rate as least attractive followed by heavy painful periods and a 5% failure rate., Conclusion: Women and GPs differed in their ranking of contraceptive characteristics. Long duration of use, high efficacy, minimal or no bleeding without pain, were preferred by both. Very undesirable were heavy periods especially with pain, and low efficacy.

Background and objectives Australians can seek general practice care from multiple general practitioners (GPs) in multiple locations. This provides high levels of patient choice but may reduce continuity of care. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of attendance at multiple general practices in Australia, and identify patient characteristics associated with multiple practice attendances. Methods A cross-sectional survey of 2477 Australian adults was conducted online in July 2013. Respondents reported whether they had attended more than one general practice in the past year, and whether they had a usual general practice and GP. Demographic information, health service use and practice characteristics were also obtained from the survey. Results Over one-quarter of the sample reported attending more than one practice in the previous year. Multiple practice attendance is less common with increasing age, and less likely for survey respondents from regional Australia, compared with respondents from metropolitan areas. Multiple practice attenders are just as likely as single practice attenders to have a usual GP. Discussion A significant proportion of general practice care is delivered away from usual practices. This may have implications for health policy, in terms of continuity and quality of primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding the important factors for choosing a general practitioner (GP) can inform the provision of consumer information and contribute to the design of primary care services. Objective: To identify the factors considered important when choosing a GP and to explore subgroup differences. Design: An online survey asked about the respondent's experience of GP care and included 36 questions on characteristics important to the choice of GP. Participants: An Australian population sample (n = 2481) of adults aged 16 or more. Methods: Principal components analysis identified dimensions for the creation of summated scales, and regression analysis was used to identify patient characteristics associated with each scale. Results: The 36 questions were combined into five scales (score range 1–5) labelled: care quality, types of services, availability, cost and practice characteristics. Care quality was the most important factor (mean = 4.4, SD = 0.6) which included questions about technical care, interpersonal care and continuity. Cost (including financial and time cost) was also important (mean = 4.1, SD = 0.6). The least important factor was types of services (mean = 3.3, SD = 0.9), which covered the range of different services provided by or co‐located with the practice. Frequent GP users and females had higher scores across all 5 scales, while the importance of care quality increased with age. Conclusions: When choosing a GP, information about the quality of care would be most useful to consumers. Respondents varied in the importance given to some factors including types of services, suggesting the need for a range of alternative primary care services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study that identified factors affecting bulk-billing by general practitioners in Australia. Topics include the association between patient characteristics and bulk-billing and between general practice characteristics and bulk-billing, the caution needed when considering changes to general practitioner fees and Medicare rebates, and the lack of association between bulk-billing and shorter consultation times.

Background: In the past decade, the range of contraceptives available has increased dramatically. There are limited data on the factors that determine women's choices on contraceptive alternatives or what factors providers consider most important when recommending contraceptive products to women. Objectives: Our objectives were to compare women's (consumers') preferences and GPs' (providers') views in relation to existing and new contraceptive methods, and particularly to examine what factors increase the acceptability of different contraceptive products. Methods: A best-worst attribute stated-choice experiment was completed online. Participants (Australian women of reproductive age and Australian GPs) completed questions on 16 contraceptive profiles. 200 women of reproductive age were recruited through a commercial panel. GPs from all states of Australia were randomly sampled and approached by phone; 162 GPs agreed to participate. Participants chose the best and worst attribute levels of hypothetical but realistic prescribed contraceptive products. Best and worst choices were modelled using multinomial logit and product features were ranked from best to worst according to the size of model coefficients. Results: The most attractive feature of the contraceptive products for both GPs and women consumers were an administration frequency of longer than 1 year and light or no bleeding. Women indicated that the hormonal vaginal ring was the least attractive mode of administration. Conclusions: Women and GPs agree that longer-acting methods with less bleeding are important features in preferred methods of contraception; however, women are also attracted to products involving less invasive modes of administration. While the vaginal ring may fill the niche in Australia for a relatively non-invasive, moderately long-acting and effective contraceptive, the results of this study indicate that GPs will need to promote the benefits of the vaginal ring to overcome negative perceptions about this method among women who may benefit from using it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Care from a general practitioner (GP) is one of the most frequently utilised healthcare services for people with low back pain and only a small proportion of those with low back pain who seek care from a GP are referred to other services. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of GP care in non-specific low back pain. We searched clinical and economic electronic databases, and the reference list of relevant systematic reviews and included studies to June 2010. Economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials with at least one GP care arm were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened search results and extracted data. Eleven studies were included; the majority of which conducted a cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis. Most studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of usual GP care. Adding advice, education and exercise, or exercise and behavioural counselling, to usual GP care was more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. Clinical rehabilitation and/or occupational intervention, and acupuncture were more cost-effective than usual GP care. One study investigated the cost-effectiveness of guideline-based GP care, and found that adding exercise and/or spinal manipulation was more cost-effective than guideline-based GP care alone. In conclusion, GP care alone did not appear to be the most cost-effective treatment option for low back pain. GPs can improve the cost-effectiveness of their treatment by referring their patients for additional services, such as advice and exercise, or by providing the services themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to the article entitled "Factors affecting general practitioner charges and Medicare bulk-billing: Results of a survey of Australians" that was published in the previous issue is presented.