ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend health care professionals to use supportive tools like questionnaires when assessing cancer patients' needs. Little is known about GPs' perspectives and experience in this regard. OBJECTIVE: To examine how GPs experience to involve a short questionnaire, completed by patients' prior to a consultation, when addressing the patients' problems and needs. The aim is to contribute to the knowledge concerning the use of questionnaires as part of clinical cancer care in general practice. METHODS: Semi-structured individual interviews with 11 GPs in the Region of Southern Denmark purposefully sampled with regard to gender, years working in general practice and practice form. Interviews were analyzed using systematic text condensation. RESULTS: Most GPs found that using the questionnaire provided a supportive structure to the consultation. The questionnaire helped to bring forward issues of importance to the patients, which might otherwise not have been mentioned and enhanced a patient-centered approach. A few GPs found the use of the questionnaire to be restraining, detracting focus from the patient and impede usual practice. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that using questionnaires may have the potential to improve clinical cancer care in general practice in relation to needs assessment of cancer patients and the results support current recommendations.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , General Practice/methods , Needs Assessment , Neoplasms , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Communication , Female , Humans , Interviews as Topic , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Participation , Patient-Centered Care , Physician-Patient Relations , Qualitative Research , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Previous studies suggest that doctors' personal lifestyle, risk taking personality and beliefs about risk reducing therapies may affect their clinical decision-making. Whether such factors are further associated with patients' adherence with medication is largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate associations between GPs' attitudes towards risk, statin therapy and management of non-adherence and their patients' adherence, and to identify subgroups of GPs with poor patient adherence. METHODS: All Danish GPs were invited to participate in an online survey. We asked whether they regarded statin treatment as important, how they managed non-adherence and whether non-adherence annoyed them. The Jackson Personality Inventory-revised was used to measure risk attitude. The GPs' responses were linked to register data on their patients' redeemed statin prescriptions. Mixed effect logistic regression was used to estimate associations between patient adherence and GPs' attitudes. Adherence was estimated by the proportion of days covered in a 1-year period using an 80% cut-off. RESULTS: We received responses from 1398 GPs (42.2%) who initiated statin therapy in 12 192 patients during the study period. In total 6590 (54.1%) of these patients were adherent. Patients who had GPs rarely assessing their treatment adherence were less likely to be adherent than those who had GPs assessing their patients' treatment adherence now and then, odds ratio (OR) 0.86 [confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.96]. No other associations were found between patients' adherence and GPs' attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that GPs' attitudes to risk, statin therapy or management of non-adherence are not significantly associated with their patients' adherence.
