Why do general practitioners not refer patients to behaviour-change programmes after preventive health checks? A mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: This study was embedded in the Check-In randomised controlled trial that investigated the effectiveness of general practice-based preventive health checks on adverse health behaviour and early detection of non-communicable diseases offered to individuals with low socioeconomic positions. Despite successful recruitment of patients, the intervention had no effect. One reason for the lack of effectiveness could be low rates of referral to behaviour-change programmes in the municipality, resulting in a low dose of the intervention delivered. The aim of this study is to examine the referral pattern of the general practitioners and potential barriers to referring eligible patients to these behaviour-change programmes. METHODS: A mixed-method design was used, including patients' questionnaires, recording sheet from the health checks and semi-structured qualitative interviews with general practitioners. All data used in the study were collected during the time of the intervention. Logistic regressions were used to estimate odds ratios for being eligible and for receiving referrals. The qualitative empirical material was analysed thematically. Emerging themes were grouped, discussed and the material was re-read. The themes were reviewed alongside the analysis of the quantitative material to refine and discuss the themes. RESULTS: Of the 364 patients, who attended the health check, 165 (45%) were marked as eligible for a referral to behaviour-change programme by their general practitioner and of these, 90 (55%) received referrals. Daily smoking (OR = 3.22; 95% CI:2.01-5.17), high-risk alcohol consumption (OR = 2.66; 95% CI:1.38-5.12), obesity (OR = 2.89; 95% CI:1.61-5.16) and poor lung function (OR = 2.05; 95% CI:1.14-3.70) were all significantly associated with being eligible, but not with receiving referral. Four themes emerged as the main barriers to referring patients to behaviour-change programmes: 1) general practitioners' responsibility and ownership for their patients, 2) balancing information and accepting a rejection, 3) assessment of the right time for behavioural change and 4) general practitioners' attitudes towards behaviour-change programmes in the municipality. CONCLUSION: We identified important barriers among the general practitioners which influenced whether the patients received referrals to behaviour-change programmes in the municipality and thereby influenced the dose of intervention delivered in Check-In. The findings suggest that an effort is needed to assist the collaboration between general practices and the municipalities' primary preventive services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT01979107 ; October 25, 2013.

Association of osteoarthritis risk factors with knee and hip pain in a population-based sample of 29-59 year olds in Denmark: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to a) describe the prevalence of knee and hip osteoarthritis risk factors in a population of 29-59 year old individuals, b) estimate the association between persistent knee/hip pain and osteoarthritis risk factors, and c) describe the prevalence of osteoarthritis risk factors, including specific biomechanical risk factors, in individuals with prolonged persistent knee or hip pain. METHODS: Participants completed the "Early Detection and Prevention" pilot study questionnaire, including items on presence of knee/hip pain within the last month and osteoarthritis risk factors. Individuals reporting knee/hip problems completed a second questionnaire, including items about most problematic joint and specific biomechanical osteoarthritis risk factors. After describing the prevalence of persistent knee/hip pain and osteoarthritis risk factors among respondents stratified for sex and age, logistic regression was used to estimate the strength of associations between osteoarthritis risk factors and presence of knee/hip pain. The prevalence of prolonged persistent pain (i.e. knee/hip pain reported at both questionnaires) and osteoarthritis risk factors among respondents with prolonged persistent knee and hip pain, were described. RESULTS: Two thousand six hundred sixty-one respondents completed the first survey. The one-month prevalence of persistent knee/hip pain was 27%. Previous knee/hip injury was associated with persistent knee/hip pain for both sexes in all age groups, while a family history of osteoarthritis was associated with persistent knee/hip pain in all age groups except for 29-39 year old men. A higher BMI was associated with persistent knee/hip pain in 40-59 year old women, and 50-59 year old men. Eight hundred sixty seven respondents completed the second questionnaire. Knee/hip injuries and surgeries were more common in individuals with prolonged persistent knee than hip pain. CONCLUSIONS: Knee/hip pain within the last month was frequent among individuals aged 29-59 years. Multiple known osteoarthritis risk factors were associated with presence of knee/hip pain. Joint injury and previous surgery were more common in individuals with knee than hip pain. The results support the notion that joint injury and overweight during early adulthood are signs of a trajectory towards symptomatic osteoarthritis later in life and may help earlier identification of groups at high risk of future symptomatic osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02797392 ). Registered April 29,2016.

Pain treatment on outpatient basis utilizing extradural opiates. A Danish multicentre study comprising 105 patients.

Previous to October 1st, 1981, 8 major Danish anaesthesiological departments registered 105 patients treated with extradural opiates for a period of more than 7 days, partially or completely on outpatient basis. Ninety-four suffered from painful malignant diseases and 11 patients from various painful benign diseases. The mean period of treatment was 65 days (range: 7-283 days) and of these 49 days (2-266 days) as outpatients. The total number of inserted epidural catheters was 215, equivalent of an average of 2 per patient (range 1-5). Reasons for removing an extradural catheter were injection-related pain, difficulty in injecting the desired volume, and displacement of catheter. Morphine chloride, in a solution of 0.4 mg/ml of normal saline, was the main choice as analgesic agent (90 patients). The mean daily dose of this drug totalled 12.6 +/- 4.8 mg (S.D.) (range: 4-30 mg) distributed as 2.7 +/- 0.9 (S.D.) (range: 1-6) daily injections. Twelve patients were treated with buprenorphine extradurally. Satisfactory pain relief was achieved for 70 patients (67%) who managed with extradural opiates as sole analgesic treatment. One patient developed septicaemia with a non-fatal outcome probably originating from some other focus. Apart from this no serious side effects were reported. Medically unskilled persons or relatives were responsible for instillation of all extradural opiates with 42 patients and partially responsible with 14 patients. Eleven patients managed injections without assistance. District nurses took care of medication for 46 patients, aided by a general practitioner in 5 cases. Three patients were supplied with continuous extradural infusion by means of a Mill Hill microinfusion pump.