Drugs in blood and urine samples from victims of suspected exposure to drink spiking: A prospective observational study from Oslo, Norway.

OBJECTIVE: People regularly contact emergency medicine services concerned that they have been exposed to drink spiking, i.e., exposure to drugs without their knowledge or permission. We identified drugs in blood and urine samples from patients suspecting exposure to drink spiking, with special consideration for drugs not reported taken by the patient (unreported drugs). METHODS: From September 2018 to May 2019, we collected blood and urine samples from patients 16 years or older presenting at an emergency clinic in Oslo, Norway, within 48 hours of suspected exposure to drink spiking. We also collected information on ethanol ingestion and drugs taken. Blood samples were analyzed for 20 classical recreational drugs using ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS/MS) and an automated enzymatic method for ethanol. Urine samples were analyzed using immunoassay methods and a specific gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS) method for gammahydroxybutyrate (GHB). RESULTS: From 100 included patients (median age 24 years, 62 females), we collected 100 blood samples and 72 urine samples. Median time since exposure was 5 hours. Unreported drugs were found in 15 patients. Unreported drugs in the blood samples were clonazepam in 3, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in 3, amphetamine in 2, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in 2, tramadol in 1, cocaine in 1, and methamphetamine in 1. Unreported drugs in the urine samples were cocaine in 5, amphetamine in 4, ecstasy in 3, and cannabis in 2. Ethanol was found in 69 patients, all reporting ethanol ingestion. Median blood ethanol concentration was higher in patients with no unreported drugs detected, 1.00‰ (interquartile range (IQR) 0-1.52) vs. 0‰ (IQR 0-0.46) (p<0.001). GHB was not detected. CONCLUSION: Unreported drugs, possibly used for drink spiking, were found in 15% of patients. Blood ethanol concentration was higher when no unreported drugs were found. GHB was not detected in any patient.

How patients experience discussing couple relationship problems with general practitioners: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Couple relationship satisfaction is related to good physical and mental health and longevity. Many patients have discussed or wish to discuss their couple relationship with their general practitioner (GP) and look for personalised care and support when discussing topics they perceive as sensitive. AIM: To explore patient experiences of discussing couple relationship problems in GP consultations. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study employing semi-structured interviews with patients from general practice. METHOD: Individual interviews with 18 patients who had discussed their couple relationship with their GP. Participants were recruited through both social and traditional media, and all interviews were digitally recorded. The purposive sample comprised thirteen women and five men, representing diverse age groups, backgrounds, and relationship problems. All participants identified as heterosexual. We analysed interview data thematically using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: (i) GPs in a facilitating role, not on an assembly line; (ii) Navigating the "elephant in the room"; (iii) GPs as biomedically competent life witnesses. GP continuity was vital in fostering the trust required to discuss sensitive topics, such as relationship issues. Participants valued a biopsychosocial approach which incorporated knowledge of close relationships into medical consultations. They appreciated both GP support and constructive challenges that prompted them to take responsibility for relationship improvements. CONCLUSION: Patients value their GPs' holistic, supportive, and direct approach in addressing couple relationship problems, although they perceive that GPs do not always have sufficient time. They welcome relevant challenges that can drive positive change.

Women's information needs about menopause: a cross-sectional survey in Norwegian general practice.

BACKGROUND: Research has indicated that providing women with information about menopause can improve their attitudes towards it and symptom experience. Nevertheless, information shared on the menopause is often arbitrary. AIM: To examine women's information needs about menopause, and understand if, when, and from whom they want information. DESIGN & SETTING: A cross-sectional study was undertaken. A questionnaire survey was distributed to women in the waiting room of 54 general practice clinics in South-Eastern Norway in autumn 2022. METHOD: Medical students recruited women in the clinic waiting rooms. A 1-page study-specific questionnaire was used, focusing on need for information about menopause. A multinominal logistic regression model was used to analyse the association between the desire for information and education level, country of birth, and menopausal status. RESULTS: A total of 625 women were included, with a mean age of 44.4 years (standard deviation [SD] 8.7). In all, 59% answered that they wanted information about menopause, and 81% of these wanted their GP to inform them, from a median age of 45 years. According to the women, only 10% of GPs had initiated a discussion on the menopause. Higher education was a predictor for wanting information. A main driver of information needs was to help oneself in the present and in the future. In all, 33% did not want information. The main reasons were that they already possessed sufficient information, would take menopause as it comes, were too young, or were already postmenopausal. The sex of the GP did not influence the results. CONCLUSION: Most women wanted information about menopause from their GP. The study emphasises the need for GPs to consider prioritising this discussion, and to keep up to date on recommendations and treatment options.

Burden of late effects in a nationwide sample of long-term breast cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Long-term breast cancer survivors (BCSs) may experience several late effects (LEs) simultaneously. This study aimed to identify subgroups of 8-year BCSs with higher burden of LEs who could benefit from closer survivorship care, explore variables associated with higher symptom burden, and describe how symptom burden may affect general functioning. METHODS: All Norwegian women aged 20 to 65 years when diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in 2011 and 2012 were invited (n = 2803). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire/BR23, the Fatigue Questionnaire, Assessment of Survivor Concerns, and Scale for Chemotherapy Induced Long-term Neurotoxicity were used to assess 10 common LEs and general functioning. Using latent class analysis, subgroups of BCSs with similar burden of LEs were identified. Multinominal regression analysis were performed to examine variables associated with higher symptom burden. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 1353 BCSs; 46% had low, 37% medium, and 17% high symptom burden. Younger age, short education, axillary dissection, higher systemic treatment burden, higher body mass index, and physical inactivity were associated with higher symptom burden. General functioning scores were lower, and the proportion on disability pension were higher among BCSs in the two most burdened subgroups compared with those in the low burden subgroup. CONCLUSION: More than half of long-term BCSs suffered from medium or high symptom burden and experienced impaired general functioning compared with BCS with low symptom burden. Younger age and systemic treatment were important risk factors for higher symptom burden. BCSs at risk of higher symptom burdens should be identified and offered closer and extended survivorship care.

Late effects after breast cancer treatment. / Seneffekter etter behandling av brystkreft.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women in Norway. Nine out of ten will become long-term survivors. Being cancer-free does not necessarily mean feeling healthy, and many experience troublesome late effects, such as fatigue, pain and fear of recurrence. General practitioners represent the most important medical support for the majority of these women. This clinical review article summarises up-to-date knowledge about late effects after breast cancer treatment. Non-pharmacological interventions can have a positive effect on many of the most common late effects.

Sexual health in long-term breast cancer survivors: a comparison with female population controls from the HUNT study.

PURPOSE: Sexual health is an important aspect of quality of life. Knowledge concerning sexual health in long-term breast cancer survivors (BCSs) is limited. This study compared sexual health in BCSs 8 years after diagnosis with similarly aged controls and examined the impact of menopausal status at diagnosis and systemic breast cancer treatments on sexual health. METHODS: Women aged 20-65 years when diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer in 2011-2012 were identified by the Cancer Registry of Norway (n = 2803) and invited to participate in a nationwide survey. Controls were women from the Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT4). Sexual functioning and sexual enjoyment were measured by the EORTC QLQ-BR23 subscales scored from 0 to 100, and sexual discomfort by the Sexual Activity Questionnaire scored from 0 to 6. Linear regression analyses with adjustments for sociodemographic and health-related variables were performed to compare groups. Differences of ≥ 10% of range score were considered clinically significant. RESULTS: The study samples consisted of 1241 BCSs and 17,751 controls. Sexual enjoyment was poorer (B - 13.1, 95%CI - 15.0, - 11.2) and discomfort higher (B 0.9, 95%CI 0.8, 1.0) among BCSs compared to controls, and larger differences were evident between premenopausal BCSs and controls (B - 17.3, 95%CI - 19.6, - 14.9 and B 1.2, 95%CI 1.0, 1.3, respectively). BCSs treated with both endocrine- and chemotherapy had lower sexual functioning (B - 11.9, 95%CI - 13.8, - 10.1), poorer sexual enjoyment (B - 18.1, 95%CI - 20.7, - 15.5), and more sexual discomfort (B 1.4, 95% 1.3, 1.6) than controls. CONCLUSION: Sexual health impairments are more common in BCSs 8 years after diagnosis compared to similar aged population controls. During follow-up, attention to such impairments, especially among women diagnosed at premenopausal age and treated with heavy systemic treatment, is warranted.

Exploring why European primary care physicians sometimes do not think of, or act on, a possible cancer diagnosis. A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: While primary care physicians (PCPs) play a key role in cancer detection, they can find cancer diagnosis challenging, and some patients have considerable delays between presentation and onward referral. AIM: To explore European PCPs' experiences and views on cases where they considered that they had been slow to think of, or act on, a possible cancer diagnosis. DESIGN & SETTING: A multicentre European qualitative study, based on an online survey with open-ended questions, asking PCPs for their narratives about cases when they had missed a diagnosis of cancer. METHOD: Using maximum variation sampling, PCPs in 23 European countries were asked to describe what happened in a case where they were slow to think of a cancer diagnosis, and for their views on why it happened. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: A total of 158 PCPs completed the questionnaire. The main themes were as follows: patients' descriptions did not suggest cancer; distracting factors reduced PCPs' cancer suspicions; patients' hesitancy delayed the diagnosis; system factors not facilitating timely diagnosis; PCPs felt that they had acted wrongly; and problems with communicating adequately. CONCLUSION: The study identified six overarching themes that need to be addressed. Doing so should reduce morbidity and mortality in the small proportion of patients who have a significant, avoidable delay in their cancer diagnosis. The 'Swiss cheese' model of accident causation showed how the themes related to each other.

Sexually transmitted infections among patients attending a sexual assault centre: a cohort study from Oslo, Norway.

OBJECTIVES: We estimate the prevalence of sexually transmitted infection (STI) among patients after sexual assault, assess the possible value of azithromycin prophylaxis, and identify risk factors for assault-related STI and for not presenting at follow-up. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Sexual assault centre in Oslo, Norway. PARTICIPANTS: 645 patients, 602 (93.3%) women and 43 (6.7%) men, attending the centre from May 2017 to July 2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: Microbiological testing at the primary examination and at follow-up consultations after 2, 5 and 12 weeks. Estimated relative risk for assault-related STI and for not presenting at follow-up. RESULTS: At primary examination, the prevalence of genital chlamydia was 8.4%, Mycoplasma genitalium 6.4% and gonorrhoea 0.6%. In addition, the prevalence of bacterial STI diagnosed at follow-up and possibly from the assault was 3.0% in total: 2.5% for M. genitalium, 1.4% for genital chlamydia and 0.2% for gonorrhoea. This prevalence did not change when azithromycin was no longer recommended from January 2018. There were no new cases of hepatitis B, hepatitis C, HIV or syphilis. We found no specific risk factors for assault-related STI. Patients with previous contact with child welfare service less often presented to follow-up (relative risk (RR) 2.0 (95% CI 1.1 to 3.5)), as did patients with a history of sex work (RR 3.6 (1.2 to 11.0)) or substance abuse (RR 1.7 (1.1 to 2.7)). CONCLUSIONS: Most bacterial STIs were diagnosed at the primary examination, hence not influenced by prophylaxis. There was no increase in bacterial STI diagnosed at follow-up when azithromycin prophylaxis was not routinely recommended, supporting a strategy of starting treatment only when infection is diagnosed or when the patient is considered at high risk. Sex work, substance abuse and previous contact with child welfare services were associated with not presenting to follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03132389).

Late-effect awareness and follow-up of cancer in general practice.

OBJECTIVE: With increasing cancer incidence and survival rates, follow-up care becomes a major healthcare concern, placing increased demands on general practitioners (GPs). We explored GPs' awareness of late effects (LEs) after cancer treatment. Their degree of involvement and attitudes towards follow-up care was studied separately for solid cancers and Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). DESIGN AND SETTING: Mailed questionnaire study in Norwegian general practice. SUBJECTS: 185 responding GPs with responsibility for HL survivors, more than 10 years since diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: All GPs reported some awareness of LEs. Increasing awareness of LEs was associated with female sex, being a specialist, having experience from hospital-based cancer care and familiarity with official guidelines on LEs after treatment. The majority of GPs were involved in follow-up care, which increased with patients' time since treatment and was associated with higher awareness of LEs. GPs with work experience in hospital-based cancer care were more likely to be engaged in HL follow-up. Most GPs were willing to provide follow-up care at some point after treatment. Older and more experienced GPs, and those satisfied with the collaboration with hospital specialists, were more likely to provide follow-up earlier. CONCLUSION: GPs' awareness of LEs and their willingness to provide follow-up care were related to familiarity with guidelines and experience. GPs more involved in follow-up care also had higher knowledge of LEs. Distribution of guidelines on LEs and follow-up care, and improving collaboration with hospital specialists, might increase GPs' knowledge and willingness to become involved in follow-up care, especially early in their careers. GPs' involvement and attitude towards follow-up of survivors of common solid cancers and HL, a rare malignant disease, were similar.KEY POINTSNorwegian general practitioners (GPs) are involved in survivorship care after cancer treatment. We investigated their awareness of late effects (LEs), their involvement and their attitude towards follow-up care of solid cancers and Hodgkin's lymphoma. • GPs registered as specialists, aware of guidelines and with experience from hospital-based cancer care reported higher awareness of LEs. • GPs with higher awareness of LEs were more frequently involved in follow-up care. • GPs with longer experience in general practice were comfortable with follow-up care at an earlier stage after treatment. • Results were similar for follow-up care of survivors of solid cancers and Hodgkin's lymphoma.

What factors empower general practitioners for early cancer diagnosis? A 20-country European Delphi Study.

BACKGROUND: Some symptoms are recognised as red flags for cancer, causing the General Practitioner (GP) to refer the patient for investigation without delay. However, many early symptoms of cancer are vague and unspecific, and in these cases, a delay in referral risks a diagnosis of cancer that is too late. Empowering GPs in their management of patients that may have cancer is likely to lead to more timely cancer diagnoses. AIM: To identify the factors that affect European GPs' empowerment in making an early diagnosis of cancer. METHODS: This was a Delphi study involving GPs in 20 European countries. We presented GPs with 52 statements representing factors that could empower GPs to increase the number of early cancer diagnoses. Over three Delphi rounds, we asked GPs to indicate the clinical relevance of each statement on a Likert scale.The final list of statements indicated those that were considered by consensus to be the most relevant. RESULTS: In total, 53 GPs from 20 European countries completed the Delphi process, out of the 68 GPs who completed round one. Twelve statements satisfied the pre-defined criteria for relevance. Five of the statements related to screening and four to the primary/secondary care interface. The other selected statements concerned information technology (IT) and GPs' working conditions. Statements relating to training, skills and working efficiency were not considered priority areas. CONCLUSION: GPs consider that system factors relating to screening, the primary-secondary care interface, IT and their working conditions are key to enhancing their empowerment in patients that could have cancer. These findings provide the basis for seeking actions and policies that will support GPs in their efforts to achieve timely cancer diagnosis.

GPs' identification of patients with mental distress: a coupled questionnaire and cohort study from norwegian urban general practice.

BACKGROUND: Mental health problems are one of the leading causes of disease burden worldwide, and are mainly diagnosed and treated in general practice. It is unclear however, how general practitioners (GPs) identify mental health problems in their patients. The aim of this study was to explore how patients' self-reported levels of mental distress correspond with psychological diagnoses made by their GPs, and associations with sex, age, number of consultations, and somatic symptom diagnoses. METHODS: A questionnaire study coupled with retrospective and prospective cohort data from 553 patients aged 16-65 years in six GP offices in Oslo, Norway during 21 months in 2014-2016. RESULTS: We found that 73.3% of patients with self-reported high levels of mental distress versus only 13.3% of the patients with low levels of mental distress had received a psychological diagnosis (p < 0.01). We found an increase in number of consultations for the group with high levels of mental distress regardless of having received a psychological diagnosis (p < 0.01). There was also an increase in number of somatic symptoms (p = 0.04) and higher number of females (0.04) in this group. 35% of patients had received one or more psychological diagnosis by their GP. Mean CORE-10 score, being female and a high number of consultations was associated with having received a psychological diagnosis. In the adjusted analyses high CORE-10 score and a high number of consultations still predicted a psychological diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: We found a clear association between self-reported mental distress and having received a psychological diagnosis amongst the participants, and the probability for being identified increased with increasing levels of mental distress, and increasing number of visits to their doctor. This suggests that GPs can identify patients with high levels of mental distress in general practice in an adequate way, even though this can sometimes be a complex issue. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration The main study was retrospectively registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on August 10 2019 with identification number NCT03624829.

Poisoning with central stimulant drugs: an observational study from Oslo, Norway.

BACKGROUND: The use of central stimulant drugs causes significant morbidity. We describe poisonings with central stimulant drugs and compare the different central stimulants concerning combinations with other drugs, treatment, and clinical course.  METHODS: Patients presenting from 1 October 2013 to 31 March 2016 with poisoning related to the recreational use of central stimulant drugs were retrospectively included at a primary care emergency outpatient clinic and at a hospital emergency department in Oslo, Norway. Diagnosis of toxic agents was mainly based on the clinical assessment of the doctor treating the patient. Amphetamine and methamphetamine were co-categorized as amphetamine. RESULTS: Among the 1131 cases of acute poisoning with central stimulant drugs at the outpatient clinic, amphetamine was involved in 808 (71.4%), cocaine in 252 (22.3%) methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in 104 (9.2%), and methylphenidate in 13 (1.1%). Among the 211 cases at the hospital, amphetamine was involved in 167 (79.1%), cocaine in 60 (28.4%), and MDMA in 38 (18.0%). Amphetamine was frequently combined with opioids (40.1% at the outpatient clinic and 41.9% at the hospital) and benzodiazepines (28.3% and 45.5%), while MDMA often was combined with ethanol (64.4% and 71.1%), as was cocaine (62.7% and 61.7%). Sedation was given in 5.2% and 38.4% of cases, naloxone in 9.4% and 37.0%, and flumazenil in 0.1% and 28.0%. In total, 16.5% of the cases at the outpatient clinic were transferred to a hospital for medical review and 8.5% to a psychiatric hospital. Among the hospital patients, 92.9% were admitted to intensive care. CONCLUSION: Amphetamine was the most common central stimulant drug involved in acute poisoning in Oslo, often combined with opioids and benzodiazepines.

GPs' experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic - a focus group study. / Fastlegers møte med covid-19-pandemien ­ en fokusgruppestudie.

BACKGROUND: The working day of Norwegian GPs was turned on its head during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the extreme, ongoing pressure the GP service was under. We conducted a qualitative study of the GPs' perceptions of the challenges they faced and of how they coped during the pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Focus group interviews were conducted with 19 GPs from four medical practices in the county of Innlandet. The interviews were analysed using the systematic text condensation method. RESULTS: The GPs described how they have coped with the extremely challenging demands on them. They expressed an expectation of rapid adaptability, and considered this a fundamental characteristic of the role of the GP. They felt an enormous responsibility for their own patients and that in a time of crisis this responsibility was extended to include the entire population. They saw themselves as an important part of the local authority's public health preparedness, even though they had not reflected on this to any great extent prior to the pandemic. INTERPRETATION: The GP service's adaptability during times of crisis depends on the GPs' strong individual and collective sense of responsibility and their ability to cope. The latter is the GP service's great strength, but it also represents a vulnerability due to the camouflaging of the overburdening of the service. This can lead to local authorities failing to take responsibility for their statutory duties.

Unspecified opioids among opioid overdoses in Oslo, Norway.

OBJECTIVE: Since 2017, an increasing number of opioid overdoses in Oslo, Norway, has been categorized as involving unspecified opioids, as noted in the patient records by the doctor treating the patient. In this study we compare the characteristics of overdoses involving unspecified opioids, long-acting opioids, and heroin. Data on patients presenting with opioid overdose was retrospectively collected from 1 October 2013 to 31 December 2019 at the Oslo Accident and Emergency Outpatient Clinic. RESULTS: Among 2381 included cases, 459 (19.3%) involved unspecified opioids, 134 (5.6%) long-acting opioids, and 1788 (75.1%) heroin. Overdoses involving unspecified opioids needed longer observation, median 5 h 29 min vs. 4 h 54 min (long-acting opioids) and 4 h 49 min (heroin) (p < 0.001), and had a lower Glasgow coma scale score, median 10 vs. 13 in both the other groups (p < 0.001). Naloxone was given in 23.3% of cases involving unspecified opioids, vs. 12.7% involving long-acting opioids and 30.2% involving heroin (p < 0.001). A larger proportion of patients were transferred to hospital care when unspecified or long-acting opioids were involved compared to heroin, 16.3% and 18.7% respectively vs. 10.1% (p < 0.001). Our results indicate that the category "unspecified opioids" encompasses a substantial proportion of opioids acting longer than heroin.

How do general practitioners handle couple relationship problems in consultations? A focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Couple relationship problems are common and associated with health problems. The aim of this study was to explore general practitioners' (GPs') experiences, expectations, and educational needs when dealing with couple relationship problems in consultations. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study by carrying out 3 semistructured focus group interviews with 18 GPs. We used systematic text condensation for the analyses. RESULTS: Participants shared their experiences of handling couple relationship problems in consultations. Three main themes emerged: (i) pragmatic case-finding: golden opportunities to reveal patients' couple relationship problems; (ii) conceptual and role confusion; (iii) professional competence and personal experience. While issues in relationships could serve as an explanation for relevant clinical problems, some GPs questioned whether relationship issues are strictly medical. All participants had engaged in individual supportive therapy, but none saw themselves as therapists. The interviews revealed that an individual supportive focus might lead to a consolidation of 1 partner's view, rather than challenging their position. Long-term doctor-patient relationships made it easier to talk about these issues. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed several paradoxes. GPs are confident in offering individual supportive therapy for couple relationship issues but should be aware of substantial pitfalls such as side-taking and constraining change. Despite dealing with relationship problems, GPs do not see themselves as therapists. They use professional and personal experience but would benefit from increasing their skills in cognitive restructuring promoting behavioural flexibility facing relationship problems.

Couple relationship problems are common and often raised in general practitioner (GP) consultations as they are associated with health problems. We lack knowledge about what experiences, expectations, and educational needs GPs have when dealing with these problems. In 2020, we interviewed 18 GPs about how they handle couple relationship problems in their practice. Three main themes emerged: (i) Patients seldom present their relationship as the main problem. GPs conduct pragmatic case-finding to reveal relational problems that might be connected to, or be a risk factor for, health problems. (ii) GPs deal with couple relationship problems in several ways. Some think that they are not a medical problem, while others take a more holistic approach. In both cases, GPs lack the tools to assess couple relationship problems and to offer brief interventions. (iii) The most experienced doctors emphasized that their professional and personal experience qualified them to support their patients. Continuity in the doctor­patient relationship was also considered important. We revealed that taking a biopsychosocial approach can be challenged by searching for biomedical causes for problems. GPs should be aware of the pitfalls of individual supportive therapy in dealing with couple relationship issues, such as taking sides and impeding change.