Search

Purpose: Researchers aimed to describe general practitioners' understanding of appropriate ultrasound use, to record actual scanning practices of early adopters in general practice, and to identify differences between attitudes and actual practice via a mixed methods analysis.Methods: This study was part of a larger multistage mixed methods research framework exploring the use of ultrasound in general practice in Denmark. We used an exploratory sequential approach in the data collection with initial qualitative findings from an interview study applied to building a quantitative questionnaire utilized in a cohort study. In addition, we merged the qualitative and quantitative data using joint display analysis to compare and contrast the results from the 2 stages of the study.Results: In the interviews, general practitioners described appropriate ultrasound use as point-of-care examinations with a clear purpose and limited to predefined specific conditions within delimited anatomic areas. They stated that general practitioners should receive formalized ultrasound training and be skilled in the examinations they perform. In the cohort study, general practitioners performed ultrasound examinations of anatomic areas with or without a defined clinical suspicion. Some performed ultrasound examinations for which they had no previous training or skills.Conclusions: We found a difference between the ideas about the appropriate uses for ultrasound in general practice and the actual use by early adopters in clinical practice. Our findings suggest a need for evidence-based guidelines to support general practitioners in choosing which examinations to perform and strategies for developing and maintaining scanning competency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A recent randomised controlled trial compared three combined treatments for plantar fasciopathy (PF) and found no clinically relevant between-group differences. Understanding which patient characteristics can predict response to treatment may help clinicians choose the most suitable treatment for their patients. Objectives: This study aims to explore patient characteristics associated with a successful outcome of different combined treatments for patients with PF. Study design: An ancillary analysis of a three-armed randomized controlled trial (the FIX-Heel Trial) comparing three combined treatment approaches to PF. Methods: The association between patient characteristics collected at baseline and the outcome of one of the three treatment approaches: 1) advice plus insoles (PA), 2) PA and exercises (PAX), and 3) PAX and corticosteroid injection (PAXI) were explored. 180 patients with PF were included in the trial. The primary analysis is a logistic regression to analyse a possible association of sex, age, BMI, symptom duration, pain during the past week on a 0-100 mm VAS, number of PF episodes, and sedentary behaviour with a successful outcome of treatment after 12 weeks. A successful outcome is defined as a minimal clinically important change (14.1 points) in the Foot Health Status Questionnaire pain domain. Results: Preliminary results from univariate complete-case analyses indicate that pain during the past week is negatively associated with a successful outcome with odds ratios of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.91;0.99], P=0.014) and 0.91 (95%CI: 0.86;0.97, P= 0.005) in PA and PAX, respectively. Symptom duration seems negatively associated with a successful outcome with an odds ratio of 0.9 (95%CI: 0.83;0.97 P= 0.006) in PAXI. Final results, including secondary analyses, will be presented at the conference. Conclusion: Less pain during the past week in PA and PAX and shorter symptom duration in PAXI may be associated with a successful outcome of treatment after 12 weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]