Search

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to evaluate the awareness and use of the German guideline “Protection against the overuse and underuse of health care” from the general practitioners’ (GPs’) perspective. In addition, the study assessed how GPs perceive medical overuse and what solutions they have for reducing it. Methods We performed a cross-sectional online survey with recruitment from 15.06. to 31.07.2023. Participants were members of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (DEGAM). The main outcomes were the awareness and use of the guideline. Results The analysis included data from 626 physicians. 51% were female and the median age was 50 years. The guideline is known by 81% of the participants, 32% read it in more detail. The majority considered the guideline a helpful tool in reducing overuse (67%). Almost 90% wished to have more guidelines with clear do-not-do recommendations. Physicians indicated in mean (M) that 30.2% (SD = 19.3%) of patients ask them for medical services that they do not consider to be necessary and that M = 30.2% (SD = 18.1%) of all GP services can be attributed to medical overuse. About half of the participants thought that overuse is a moderate or major problem in their practice (52%) and in general practice overall (58%). More participants rated that it is especially a problem in specialist (87%) and inpatient care (82%). Changes in the reimbursement system, raising awareness for the problem and more evidence-based guidelines were considered helpful in mitigating overuse. Conclusions Although the guideline is seen as a useful tool in mitigating medical overuse, there is still further potential for its implementation and utilisation. GPs see more overuse in the inpatient and outpatient specialist areas than in their area of practice. Instead of self-critically approaching the problem, the proposed strategies are aimed at the healthcare system itself.

BackgroundAs a result of climate change, exposure to high temperatures is becoming more common, even in countries with temperate climates. For patients with chronic diseases, heat poses significant health risks. Empowering patients is a crucial element in protecting the population from the adverse effects of heat. In this context, self-reports of protective behavior are often used to gain a mutual understanding of patients’ issues. However, the extent to which self-reported behavior is associated with health complaints remains unclear. ObjectiveThis study aims to describe the association between light to moderate heat and health complaints in everyday life, and to analyze whether self-reported protective behavior and related psychosocial factors are linked to these complaints. MethodsWe conducted a pilot cohort study using internet climate data merged with an online survey of patients with chronic diseases recruited through general practitioner practices. Patients were eligible if they were 18 years or older and had at least one chronic disease. The heat was modeled using temperature and humidity data. Health complaints were assessed through up to 7 follow-up evaluations on the hottest day of each week during the observation period. Data were analyzed using 3 nested models with mixed effects multivariable linear regression, adjusting for random effects at the climate measuring station and participant levels. Model 1 included heat exposure, sociodemographic data, and chronic diseases. Model 2 added protective behavior and health literacy, while model 3 incorporated self-efficacy and somatosensory amplification (ie, the tendency to catastrophize normal bodily sensations such as insect bites). ResultsOf the 291 eligible patients, 61 (21.0%) participated in the study, providing 294 observations. On average, participants were 61 (SD 14) years old, and 31 (51%) were men. The most prevalent conditions were cardiovascular diseases (n=23, 38%) and diabetes mellitus (n=20, 33%). The most commonly reported symptoms were tiredness/fatigue (232/294 observations, 78.9%) and shortness of breath (142/294 observations, 48.3%). Compared with temperatures of 27°C or lower, a heat index between over 27°C and 32°C (β=1.02, 95% CI 0.08-1.96, P=.03) and over 32°C (β=1.35, 95% CI 0.35-2.35, P=.008) were associated with a higher symptom burden. Lower health literacy (β=–0.25, 95% CI –0.49 to –0.01, P=.04) and better self-reported protective behavior (β=0.65, 95% CI 0.29-1.00, P

Objectives Medical overuse exposes patients to unnecessary risks of harm. It is an open question whether and how patients perceive the concept of medical overuse, its causes and negative consequences.Design A qualitative study design, using elements of the Grounded Theory Approach by Strauss and Corbin.Setting Between May 2017 and January 2020, we recruited participants and conducted face-to-face interviews in the participants’ homes. Data collection took place in Bavaria, Germany.Participants We recruited 16 participants (female=8, male=8) with various characteristics for the study. We used different strategies such as flyers in supermarkets, pharmacies, participants spreading information about the study or local multipliers (snowball sampling).Results The participants mostly defined medical overuse as too much being done but understood the concept superficially. During the interviews, most participants could describe examples of medical overuse. They named a variety of direct and indirect drivers with economic factors suspected to be the main driver. As a consequence of medical overuse, participants named the physical and emotional harm (eg, side effects of medication). They found it difficult to formulate concrete solutions. In general, they saw themselves more in a passive role than being responsible for bringing about change and solutions themselves. Medical overuse is a ‘problem of the others’. The participants emphasised that health education is important in reducing medical overuse.Conclusions Medical overuse was little discussed among participants, although many participants reported experiences of too much medicine. Health education and strengthening the patients’ self-responsibility can play a vital role in reducing medical overuse.

Abstract Background The international study PRICOV-19 aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of primary health care. The German part focuses on German general practitioners during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper addresses the following research questions: (1) How were changes in tasks on primary care and patient treatment perceived by GPs?, (2) What was the role of GPs during the pandemic, and how was their wellbeing?, (3) How did GPs perceive health policy measures?, and, (4) What influenced the attitudes of GPs on health policy measures? Methods This study pursues a multi-country cross-sectional design. Data collection took place throughout Germany from 01.02. to 28.02.2021 with a quantitative online questionnaire consisting of 53 items. The questionnaire was analysed through descriptive and inferential analyses using correlation and multiple regression models. Results The response rate was 20.4% (n = 349). The respondents were mainly GPs (59.6%) in single practices (62.5%) with a mean work experience of 15 to 20 years. GPs experienced a change in their work and practice organisation (80.3%). They felt a high responsibility (70.6%) and found their work has become more meaningful to them (76%). They also saw a lack of political support (75.2%) and that the measures taken by the government overburdened the daily practice (66.4%). Not many GPs were at risk of being distressed (53.4%) but rated the health policies rather negatively (60%). The multiple regression showed, the more GPs were exposed to risk of distress, the worse they assessed the government's measures. Conclusion GPs perceived their work as relevant and felt confident they could fulfil their tasks, but noticed that health policy initially hardly supported the outpatient sector. Health policies should increase their competence in relation to primary care, ensure its needs and consider an active inclusion of GPs in preparedness plans.

Abstract Background In the course of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, multiple vaccines were developed. Little was known about reactogenicity and safety in comparison to established vaccines, e.g. influenza, pneumococcus, or herpes zoster. Therefore, the present study aimed to compare self-reported side effects in persons vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 with the incidence of side effects in persons receiving one of the established vaccines. Methods A longitudinal observational study was conducted over a total of 124 days using web-based surveys. Persons receiving either a vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 or one of the established vaccines (comparator group) were included. In the first questionnaire (short-term survey), 2 weeks after vaccination, mainly local and systemic complaints were evaluated. The long-term survey (42 days after vaccination) and follow-up survey (124 weeks after vaccination) focused on medical consultations for any reason. Multivariate analyses were conducted to determine the influence of the vaccine type (SARS-CoV-2 vs. comparator) and demographic factors. Results In total, data from 16,636 participants were included. Self-reported reactogenicity was lowest in the comparator group (53.2%) and highest in the ChAdOx1 group (85.3%). Local reactions were reported most frequently after mRNA-1273 (73.9%) and systemic reactions mainly after vector-based vaccines (79.8%). Almost all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines showed increased odds of reporting local or systemic reactions. Approximately equal proportions of participants reported medical consultations. None in the comparator group suspected a link to vaccination, while this was true for just over one in 10 in the mRNA-1273 group. The multivariate analysis showed that people with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were not more likely to report medical consultations; patients who had received a regimen with at least one ChAdOx1 were even less likely to report medical consultations. Younger age, female gender and higher comorbidity were mostly associated with higher odds of medical consultations. Conclusion The rate of adverse reactions after established vaccinations was roughly comparable to previous studies. Two weeks after vaccination, participants in the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination group reported more local and systemic local reactions than participants in the comparator group. In the further course, however, there were no higher odds of medical consultations in either of the two groups. Thus, altogether, we assume comparable safety. Trial registration DRKS-ID DRKS00025881 and DRKS-ID DRKS00025373.

Introduction Uncomplicated urinary tract infections (uUTIs) in women are common infections encountered in primary care. Evidence suggests that rapid point-of-care tests (POCTs) to detect bacteria and erythrocytes in urine at presentation may help primary care clinicians to identify women with uUTIs in whom antibiotics can be withheld without influencing clinical outcomes. This pilot study aims to provide preliminary evidence on whether a POCT informed management of uUTI in women can safely reduce antibiotic use.Methods and analysis This is an open-label two-arm parallel cluster-randomised controlled pilot trial. 20 general practices affiliated with the Bavarian Practice-Based Research Network (BayFoNet) in Germany were randomly assigned to deliver patient management based on POCTs or to provide usual care. POCTs consist of phase-contrast microscopy to detect bacteria and urinary dipsticks to detect erythrocytes in urine samples. In both arms, urine samples will be obtained at presentation for POCTs (intervention arm only) and microbiological analysis. Women will be followed-up for 28 days from enrolment using self-reported symptom diaries, telephone follow-up and a review of the electronic medical record. Primary outcomes are feasibility of patient enrolment and retention rates per site, which will be summarised by means and SDs, with corresponding confidence and prediction intervals. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic use for UTI at day 28, time to symptom resolution, symptom burden, number of recurrent and upper UTIs and re-consultations and diagnostic accuracy of POCTs versus urine culture as the reference standard. These outcomes will be explored at cluster-levels and individual-levels using descriptive statistics, two-sample hypothesis tests and mixed effects models or generalised estimation equations.Ethics and dissemination The University of Würzburg institutional review board approved MicUTI on 16 December 2022 (protocol n. 109/22-sc). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences, reports addressed to clinicians and the local citizen’s forums.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05667207.

Abstract Background Since the beginning of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, recommendations regarding the vaccination have been very dynamic. Although the safety and efficacy of different vaccines have been analysed, data were scarce for vaccine regimens combining different vaccines. We therefore aimed to evaluate and compare the perceived reactogenicity and need for medical consultation after the most frequently applied homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens. Methods In an observational cohort study, reactogenicity and safety were assessed within a maximum follow-up time of 124 days using web-based surveys. Reactogenicity was assessed for different vaccination regimens 2 weeks after a vaccination (short-term survey). The following surveys, long-term and follow-up surveys, focused on the utilisation of medical services, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related. Results Data of 17,269 participants were analysed. The least local reactions were seen after a ChAdOx1 − ChAdOx1 regimen (32.6%, 95% CI [28.2, 37.2]) and the most after the first dose with mRNA-1273 (73.9%, 95% CI [70.5, 77.2]). Systemic reactions were least frequent in participants with a BNT162b2 booster after a homologous primary immunisation with ChAdOx1 (42.9%, 95% CI [32.1, 54.1]) and most frequent after a ChAdOx1 − mRNA-1273 (85.5%, 95% CI [82.9, 87.8]) and mRNA-1273/mRNA-1273 regimen (85.1%, 95% CI [83.2, 87.0]). In the short-term survey, the most common consequences were medication intake and sick leave (after local reactions 0% to 9.9%; after systemic reactions 4.5% to 37.9%). In the long-term and follow-up surveys, between 8.2 and 30.9% of participants reported consulting a doctor and between 0% and 5.4% seeking hospital care. The regression analyses 124 days after the first and after the third dose showed that the odds for reporting medical consultation were comparable between the vaccination regimens. Conclusions Our analysis revealed differences in reactogenicity between the COVID-19 vaccines and vaccination regimens in Germany. The lowest reactogenicity as reported by participants was seen with BNT162b2, especially in homologous vaccination regimens. However, in all vaccination regimens reactogenicity rarely led to medical consultations. Small differences in seeking any medical consultation after 6 weeks diminished during the follow-up period. In the end, none of the vaccination regimens was associated with a higher risk for medical consultation. Trial registration DRKS DRKS00025881 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025373 ). Registered on 14 October 2021. DRKS DRKS00025373 ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00025881 ). Registered on 21 May 2021. Registered retrospectively.

BackgroundMedical overuse is defined as health care services that exceed the individual needs of patients and when the potential harms of medical interventions exceed their benefits. It has impacts on patients as well as on health care resources. To address medical overuse, it is important to understand the knowledge and experiences of overuse on the side of patients.Research questionsWhat is the citizens' understanding of overuse? How do they assess its relevance, causes, consequences and potential solutions?MethodsA quantitative online survey was conducted. The participants were asked to state what they understand by medical overuse. Statements on causes, consequences and possible solutions were evaluated. Recruitment was carried out via a panel of a market research institute (Schlesinger Group).ResultsThe survey was completed by 406 participants. In terms of age and gender, the sample corresponded to the distribution in the German population. The majority had never heard of medical overuse (58%). About 60% assumed that medical overuse means "too much medicine including overtreatment and overtesting". Medical overuse was mainly suspected for services not covered by the public health insurance system (56%), surgical interventions (45%) and medication prescriptions (37%). Reasons for medical overuse were seen in uncoordinated care and financial incentives, but also in the expectations of patients. The main problem with medical overuse was seen in rising health care costs, while harmful physical and mental consequences for patients were mentioned less often. In order to reduce medical overuse, little importance was attributed to a primary care based system or higher financial contribution of patients. Instead, stricter cost control on the side of physicians and better coordination between care providers were suggested as solutions. Differences in socio-demographic characteristics hardly showed any differences in response behavior.ConclusionMore than half of the respondents had never heard of medical overuse. Overuse was mainly associated with financial causes and consequences. It was not seen that overuse can be harmful for patients directly. The limited awareness of the problem of overuse probably is a barrier to tackling it effectively. Communicating the topic to the public might therefore be an effective start to mitigate medical overuse.Take home messageMany citizens seem not to be familiar with the concept of medical overuse, especially not with the fact that it may directly cause harm to patients. Informing citizens about the harms of medical overuse might be helpful in mitigating it.

Introduction People in need of care or support are severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We lack valid data of long-term assessments. We present a register study to detect the physical and psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support in Bavaria, Germany. To describe the persons’ life conditions comprehensively, we assess the perspectives and needs of the respective care teams too. Results will serve as evidence-based source to manage the pandemic and long-term prevention strategies.Methods and analysis The ‘Bavarian ambulatory COVID-19 Monitor’ is a multicentre registry including a purposive sample of up to 1000 patient–participants across three study sites in Bavaria. The study group consists of 600 people in need of care with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Control group 1 comprises 200 people in need of care with a negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, while control group 2 comprises 200 people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test but are not in need of care. We assess the clinical course of infection, psychosocial aspects and care needs using validated measures. Follow-up is every 6 months for up to 3 years. Additionally, we assess up to 400 people linked to these patient–participants (caregivers, general practitioners (GPs)) for their health and needs. Main analyses are stratified by level of care I–V (I=minor/V=most severe impairment of independence), inpatient/outpatient care setting, sex and age. We use descriptive and inferential statistics to analyse cross-sectional data and changes over time. In qualitative interviews with 60 stakeholders (people in need of care, caregivers, GPs, politicians), we explore interface problems of different functional logics, of everyday and professional perspectives.Ethics and dissemination The Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital LMU Munich (#20-860) and the study sites (Universities of Wurzburg and Erlangen) approved the protocol. We disseminate the results by peer-reviewed publications, international conferences, governmental reports, etc.

Abstract Background The Corona-Vakzin-Konsortium project (CoVaKo) analyses the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines in a real-world setting, as well as breakthrough infections in Bavaria, Germany. A subproject of CoVaKo aims to identify adverse reactions of the COVID-19 vaccine and compare these to adverse reactions of other vaccines in an online survey. In a preceding feasibility study, the study materials were tested for comprehensibility, visual design, and motivation to participate, as well as for their ability to be implemented and carried out in primary care practices and vaccination centres. Methods We used a mixed-methods research design. First, three focus groups consisting of general population participants were organised to evaluate the study materials and survey. Second, a test roll-out was conducted in vaccination centres and primary care practices that involved implementing and quantitatively evaluating the online survey. Third, interviews were conducted with participating general practitioners and heads of vaccination centres four weeks after the test roll-out. Results Parts of the information and registration form proved incomprehensible, specifically regarding the recruitment material and/or online survey. For example, headings were misleading given that, relative to other vaccinations, the COVID-19 vaccination was overemphasised in the title. Participants requested additional information regarding the procedure and completion time. Within 31 days, 2199 participants, who received either a COVID-19 vaccination (99%) or at least one of the control vaccinations (1%), registered for the study. Participants (strongly) agreed that the registration process was easy to understand, that the completion time was reasonable, and that the technical setup was straightforward. Physicians and heads of the vaccination centres perceived the study as easy to integrate into their workflow. The majority expressed willingness to participate in the main study. Conclusions Our study indicated that identifying and documenting adverse reactions following vaccinations using an online survey is feasible. Testing materials and surveys provided valuable insight, enabling subsequent improvements. Participation from health professionals proved essential in ensuring the practicality of procedures. Lastly, adapting the study’s organisation to external fluctuating structures and requirements confirmed necessary for a successful implementation, especially due to dynamic changes in the nation’s COVID-19 vaccination strategies. Trial registration The trial was retrospectively registered at the “Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien” (DRKS-ID: DRKS00025881 ) on Oct 14, 2021.

Abstract Background For stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been increasingly prescribed instead of vitamin-K-antagonists (VKA). For some patients a lower dosage of DOACs (ld-DOACs) is recommended. Ld-DOAC prescribing seems to be common, although previous studies did not show clear superiority of ld-DOACs over warfarin. In Germany, phenprocoumon is used almost exclusively as VKA. Randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs and phenprocoumon in the general population of patients with AF do not exist. Therefore, we aimed to compare ld-DOACs and phenprocoumon in a real-world setting in Germany. Methods In a retrospective observational cohort study, claims data from a group of small to medium-sized health insurance companies were analysed. Risks for the outcomes thromboembolism, death and major bleeding were estimated by Cox regression. Out of 93,685 patients with atrial fibrillation and a first prescription of an oral anticoagulant, 20,179 receiving VKA and 21,724 ld-DOACs (29.6% of all DOAC patients) were included. For the sensitivity analysis phenprocoumon was compared to the five ld-DOAC groups (ld-apixaban, ld-dabigatran, ld-edoxaban, ld-rivaroxaban, and the composite of all ld-DOACs) after propensity-score matching. Results Phenprocoumon was associated with statistically significant fewer thromboembolic events (HR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.13, 1.48], p

Abstract Background Due to safety signals after vaccination with COVID-19 vector vaccines, several states recommended to complete the primary immunization series in individuals having received one dose of ChAdOx1 (AstraZeneca) with an mRNA vaccine. However, data on safety and reactogenicity of this heterologous regimen are still scarce. The aim of this study was therefore to compare the reactogenicity and the frequency of medical consultations after boost vaccination in a heterologous regimen with ChAdOx1 and mRNA-vaccines (BNT162b2, BioNTech/Pfizer or mRNA-1273, Moderna) to homologous regimens with ChAdOx1 or mRNA-vaccines, respectively. Methods In an observational cohort study reactogenicity and safety were assessed 14–19 days (short-term) and 40 to 56 days (long-term) after the boost vaccination using web-based surveys. In the short-term survey solicited and unsolicited reactions were assessed, while the long-term survey focussed on health problems leading to medical consultation after the vaccination, including those that were not suspected to be vaccine-related. Results In total, 9146 participants completed at least one of the surveys (ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1: n = 552, ChAdOx1/mRNA: n = 2382, mRNA/mRNA: n = 6212). In the short-term survey, 86% with ChAdOx1/mRNA regimen reported at least one reaction, in the ChAdOx1/ChAdOx1 and mRNA/mRNA cohorts 58% and 76%, respectively (age and sex adjusted p

Objectives This study aims to evaluate whether the use of thyroid ultrasound (US) early in the work-up of suspected thyroid disorders triggers cascade effects of medical procedures and to analyse effects on morbidity, healthcare usage and costs.Study design Retrospective analysis of claims data from ambulatory care (2012–2017).Setting Primary care in Bavaria, Germany, 13 million inhabitants.Participants Patients having received a thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) test were allocated to (1) observation group: TSH test followed by an early US within 28 days or (2) control group: TSH test, but no early US. Propensity score matching was used adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics, morbidity and symptom diagnosis (N=41 065 per group after matching).Primary and secondary outcome measures Using cluster analysis, groups were identified regarding frequency of follow-up TSH tests and/or US and compared.Results Four subgroups were identified: cluster 1: 22.8% of patients, mean (M)=1.6 TSH tests; cluster 2: 16.6% of patients, M=4.7 TSH tests; cluster 3: 54.4% of patients, M=3.3 TSH tests, 1.8 US; cluster 4: 6.2% of patients, M=10.9 TSH tests, 3.9 US. Overall, reasons that explain the tests could rarely be found. An early US was mostly found in clusters 3 and 4 (83.2% and 76.1%, respectively, were part of the observation group). In cluster 4 there were more women, thyroid-specific morbidity and costs were higher and the early US was more likely to be performed by specialists in nuclear medicine or radiologists.Conclusion Presumably unnecessary tests in the field of suspected thyroid diseases seem to be frequent, contributing to cascades effects. Neither German nor international guidelines provide clear recommendations for or against US screening. Therefore, guidelines on when to apply US and when not are urgently needed.

Objectives Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were introduced based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing them to vitamin-K-antagonist (VKA) warfarin. In Germany, almost exclusively phenprocoumon is used as VKA. RCTs with phenprocoumon being absent we analysed the benefits and harms of DOACs and phenprocoumon for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in a real-world setting.Design In a retrospective observational cohort study, claims data covering inpatient and outpatient care from 2015 to 2019 were analysed by Cox regression and propensity score matching (PSM).Setting Data from a group of small-sized to medium-sized health insurance companies in Germany.Participants We analysed datasets of 71 961 patients with AF and first prescription of phenprocoumon (n=20 179) or DOAC in standard dose (n=51 782). Patients with reduced dose of DOACs were excluded (n=21 724).Outcome measures Outcomes were thromboembolic events, major bleeding and death during a 12-month follow-up period.Results The regression analysis widely showed similarity between phenprocoumon and standard dose DOACs regarding effectiveness and safety. There were only three statistically significant differences: a lower bleeding risk with composite DOACs and apixaban (HR (95% CI) = 0.67 (0.59 to 0.76) and 0.54 (0.46 to 0.63), respectively) and a higher risk of death with rivaroxaban (1.21 (1.10 to 2.34)). The analysis after PSM was consistent with the first two results regarding composite DOACs and apixaban (number needed to treat, NNT 101 and 78) and showed a lower bleeding risk with rivaroxaban (NNT 156). Absolute differences were small.Conclusions The small superiority or non-inferiority of DOACs over warfarin seen in the RCTs might not translate into relevant advantages of DOACs over phenprocoumon. To confirm the hypothesis, an RCT with phenprocoumon is needed. Next to the safety and effectiveness assessments other factors might also play a substantial role in the decision on the right OAC for stroke prevention.

Objectives The objective of this study was to find relevant concepts of functioning in community-dwelling older adults within frequently used assessment instruments published in the scientific literature. This was part of a larger project to develop an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) Core Set for use in primary care.Design A scoping review was conducted. Articles dealing with functioning in older adults were searched and assessed for eligibility. The study population included community-dwelling adults (≥75 years) without dementia, living in high-resource countries. Relevant concepts were extracted from assessment instruments and linked to the ICF using standardised linking rules. Finally, a frequency analysis was conducted.Setting Home, primary care.Participants Community-dwelling adults aged 75 years and above.Results From 5060 identified publications, 68 were included and 30 assessment instruments extracted. Overall, 1182 concepts were retrieved. Most were linked to the ‘activities and participation’ component. The most frequently identified categories were ‘memory functions’, ‘dressing’ and ‘changing basic body position’.Conclusions This review provides a list of relevant ICF categories from the research perspective that will be used for developing an ICF Core Set for older primary care patients.Trial registration numbers PROSPERO (CRD42017067784), Versorgungsforschung Deutschland Datenbank (VfD_17_003833) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03384732).

Objective: To explore relevant areas of functioning from the perspective of community-dwelling adults aged 75 years and over, in order to develop a Core Set of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) for community-dwelling older adults for use in primary care. Design: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Participants: A total of 27 community-dwelling older adults participated in the interviews and 24 of them in the focus groups. Methods: Following the proposed methodology of the ICF Research Branch, this is 1 of 4 preparatory studies in the Core Set development process. Within the transcripts, concepts of functioning were identified, based on Mayring’s qualitative content analysis using deductive category assignment with the ICF being the category system. Results: Overall 6,667 concepts were identified. Most were linked to the Activities and Participation component. The most frequently identified categories were “recreation and leisure” and “family relationships”. Conclusion: Categories from all ICF chapters were identified, demonstrating the complexity and multidimensionality of the ageing process, with a special emphasis on the component Activities and Participation. This qualitative study provides a list of relevant categories from the perspective of community--dwelling elderly people, which will be used to develop a Core Set for older primary care patients.

BACKGROUND:Medical overuse is a common problem in health care. Preventing unnecessary medicine is one of the main tasks of General Practice, so called quaternary prevention. We aimed to capture the current opinion of German General Practitioners (GPs) to medical overuse. METHODS:A quantitative online study was conducted. The questionnaire was developed based on a qualitative study and literature search. GPs were asked to estimate prevalence of medical overuse as well as to evaluate drivers and solutions of medical overuse. GPs in Bavaria were recruited via email (750 addresses). A descriptive data analysis was performed. Additionally the association between doctors' attitudes and (1) demographic variables and (2) interest in campaigns against medical overuse was assessed. RESULTS:Response rate was 18%. The mean age was 54 years, 79% were male and 68% have worked as GP longer than 15 years. Around 38% of medical services were considered as medical overuse and nearly half of the GPs (47%) judged medical overuse to be the more important problem than medical underuse. Main drivers were seen in "patients´ expectations" (76%), "lack of a primary care system" (61%) and "defensive medicine" (53%), whereas "disregard of evidence/guidelines" (15%) and "economic pressure on the side of the doctor" (13%) were not weighted as important causes. Demographic variables did not have an important impact on GPs´ response pattern. GPs interested in campaigns like "Choosing Wisely" showed a higher awareness for medical overuse, although these campaigns were only known by 50% of the respondents. DISCUSSION:Medical overuse is an important issue for GPs. Main drivers were searched and found outside their own sphere of responsibility. Campaigns as "Choosing Wisely" seem to have a positive effect on GPs attitude, but knowledge is still limited.

Introduction Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most frequent encounters in General Practice. Investigation and referral remain common despite the self-limiting character of episodes that are not largely attributable to specific underlying injuries. Identifying patients’ ideas, concerns and expectations (ICE) is a well-established element within consultation skills training and has been shown to improve prescribing. It can be a powerful communication tool setting the base for transferring and adjusting adequate clinical information. This study aims to evaluate whether ICE can decrease unnecessary medicine in the management of acute LBP in primary care.Methods and analysis Research question: Does ICE training intervention have an effect on doctors’ referrals of patients suffering from acute LBP? Population: Recruitment to this parallel cluster randomised trial will take place among general practitioners belonging to four independent practice networks in Northern Bavaria/Germany. Intervention: At baseline, 24 out of 48 doctors will be randomly assigned to take part in a 1-day training session covering theoretical background and clinical implementation of patient-centred communication by stimulating ICE. They will also be given access to a web-based supporting tool for reflective practice on their communication skills. Comparison: GPs in the control group will continue consultations as usual. Outcome: Outcome measures are referrals to diagnostic imaging, physiotherapy and specialists obtained from routine practice data, compared between intervention and control group. Time: Referrals of patients consulting their doctors for documented LBP will be monitored up to 3 months after the ICE training intervention.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for the study was obtained by the Ethics Committee of the University Erlangen-Nuremberg (296_17B). Results will be disseminated by conference presentations and journal publications.Trial registration number The trial is registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03711071).

Characteristics of high and low prescribers of antibiotics in German primary care were analysed using population data. We aimed to evaluate differences in prescribing rates and factors being associated with high prescribing, and whether high prescribers made the diagnosis of perceived bacterial infections more often.Routine data were provided by the Bavarian Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians. Routine data are delivered by primary care practices on a quarterly basis. We analysed data from 2011 and 2012. Patients older than 15 years with respiratory tract infections consulting a primary care physician were selected (6.647 primary care practices). Patient and physician characteristics associated with high prescribing were identified using stepwise logistic regression.Mean prescribing rate of antibiotics was 24.9%. Prescribing rate for high prescribers was 43.5% compared to 8.5% for low prescribers. High prescribers made the diagnosis of perceived bacterial infections more often (Mhigh = 64.5%, Mlow = 45.2%). In the adjusted regression model, perceived bacterial infections were strongly associated with high prescribing (OR = 13.9, 95% CI [10.2, 18.8]). Treating patients with comorbidities was associated with lower prescribing of antibiotics (OR = 0.6, 95% CI [0.4, 0.8]). High prescribers had a higher practice volume, a higher degree of prescribing dominance, and were situated more often in deprived areas and in rural settings.Compared to findings of studies in other European countries, prescribing rates were low. There was a considerable difference between prescribing rates of high and low prescribers. Diagnostic labelling was the best predictor for high prescribing. Current guidelines recommend considering antibiotic treatment for patients with co-morbidities. In our study, treating a large number of high-risk patients was not associated with high prescribing.