Prognostic factors for persistent fatigue after COVID-19: a prospective matched cohort study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Persistent fatigue after COVID-19 is common; however, the exact incidence and prognostic factors differ between studies. Evidence suggests that age, female sex, high body mass index, and comorbidities are risk factors for long COVID. AIM: To investigate the prevalence of persistent fatigue after COVID-19 in patients with a mild infection (managed in primary care) during the first wave of the pandemic and to determine prognostic factors for persistent fatigue. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective cohort study in Dutch general practice, combining online questionnaires with data from electronic health records. METHOD: Patients who contacted their GP between March and May 2020 and were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic were included. Patients were matched to controls without COVID-19 based on age, sex, and GP practice. Fatigue was measured at 3, 6, and 15 months, using the Checklist of Individual Strength. RESULTS: All the participants were GP attendees and included 179 with suspected COVID-19, but who had mild COVID and who had not been admitted to hospital with COVID, and 122 without suspected COVID-19. Persistent fatigue was present in 35% (49/142) of the suspected COVID-19 group and 13% (14/109) of the non-COVID-19 group (odds ratio 3.65; 95% confidence interval = 1.82 to 7.32). Prognostic factors for persistent fatigue included low education level, absence of a partner, high neuroticism (using the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised-Short Form), low resilience, high frequency of GP contact, medication use, and threatening experiences in the past. The latter three factors appeared to be prognostic factors for persistent fatigue specifically after COVID-19 infection. CONCLUSION: GP patients with COVID-19 (who were not admitted to hospital with COVID) have a fourfold higher chance of developing persistent fatigue than GP patients who had not had COVID-19. This risk is even higher in psychosocially vulnerable patients who had COVID-19.

Promoting empowerment for people living with dementia in nursing homes: Development and feasibility evaluation of an empowerment program.

OBJECTIVES: This article describes the development and feasibility evaluation of an empowerment program for people living with dementia in nursing homes. METHODS: Development and feasibility evaluation of the empowerment program was guided by the British Medical Research Council's (MRC) framework. In the developmental phase, we used intervention mapping to develop the theory- and evidence-based intervention. During the feasibility phase, two care teams utilised the program from September to December 2020. We evaluated the feasibility in terms of demand, acceptability, implementation, practicality, integration and limited efficacy. FINDINGS: This study showed that, according to healthcare professionals, the program was feasible for promoting empowerment for people living with dementia in a nursing home. Healthcare professionals mentioned an increased awareness regarding the four themes of empowerment (sense of identity, usefulness, control and self-worth), and greater focus on the small things that matter to residents. Healthcare professionals experienced challenges in involving family caregivers. CONCLUSION: An important step is to take into account the implementation prerequisites that follow from our findings, and to further investigate feasibility, as the use of the program and data collection was hindered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Subsequent research could investigate the effects of the empowerment program.

Development of a blended communication training program for managing medically unexplained symptoms in primary care using the intervention mapping approach.

BACKGROUND: General practice (GP) training in how to communicate with patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) is limited. OBJECTIVE: Development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based communication training program for GP residents focused on patients with MUS in primary care. METHODS: We used the intervention mapping (IM) framework to systematically develop the MUS training program. We conducted a needs assessment to formulate change objectives and identified teaching methods for a MUS communication training program. Next, we developed, implemented and evaluated the training program with 46 residents by assessing their self-efficacy and by exploring their experiences with the training. RESULTS: The resulting program is a blended training with an online course and two training days. After attending the training program, GP residents reported significantly higher self-efficacy for communication with patients with MUS at four weeks follow up compared to baseline. Furthermore, GP residents experienced the training program as useful and valued the combination of the online course and training days. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We developed an evidence-based communication training program for the management of patients with MUS in primary care. Future research should examine the effect of the training on GP residents' communication skills in MUS consultations in daily practice.

Medically unexplained symptoms: time to and triggers for diagnosis in primary care consultations.

BACKGROUND: It is currently not known when in the consultation GPs label symptoms as medically unexplained and what triggers this. AIM: To establish the moment in primary care consultations when a GP labels symptoms as medically unexplained and to explore what triggers them to do so. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a qualitative study. Data were collected in the Netherlands in 2015. METHOD: GPs' consultations were video-recorded. GPs stated whether the consultation was about medically unexplained symptoms (MUS). The GP was asked to reflect on the video-recorded consultation and to indicate the moment when they labelled symptoms as MUS. Qualitative interviewing and analysis were performed to explore the triggers GPs perceived that caused them to label the symptoms as MUS. RESULTS: A total of 43 of the 393 video-recorded consultations (11%) were labelled as MUS. The mean time until GPs labelled symptoms as medically unexplained was about 4 minutes for newly presented symptoms and 2 minutes for symptoms for which the patients had already visited the GP before. GPs were triggered to label symptoms as MUS in the consultation by: the way patients presented their symptoms; the symptoms not fitting into a specific pattern; patients attributing the symptoms to a psychosocial context; and a discrepancy between symptom presentation and objective findings. CONCLUSION: Most GPs labelled the presented symptoms as medically unexplained soon after the start of the consultation. GPs are triggered to label symptoms as medically unexplained by patients' symptom presentation, symptom patterns, and symptom attribution. This suggests that non-analytical reasoning was a central component in their thought process.

Enhancing shared decision making about discontinuation of antidepressant medication: a concept-mapping study in primary and secondary mental health care.

BACKGROUND: The apparent rise of antidepressant use seems to be explained to a large extent by an increase in long-term use. Both professionals and patients appear reluctant to discontinue antidepressant medication (ADM). It is not known what factors determine this reluctance. AIM: This study aimed to identify factors that enable the shared decision-making process about discontinuation of ADM between long-term users and their GPs. DESIGN AND SETTING: Concept-mapping study of a purposive sample of both patients and professionals from primary and secondary mental health care in the Netherlands. METHOD: Concept mapping was used to conceptualise and structure the topics relevant to the discontinuation process from the perspective of both patients and professionals. Participants generated topics in brainstorming sessions and subsequently prioritised and sorted them. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses were used for the cluster topics. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients and 27 professionals generated 50 separate topics. Hierarchical cluster analysis revealed six clusters of topics: 'Process of discontinuation', 'Expectations', 'Professional guidance', 'Current use', 'Environment', and 'Side effects'. Patients and professionals came up with largely similar topics. Nevertheless, a difference was found between these groups regarding the perceived importance of professional guidance. CONCLUSION: This study yielded an informed selection of the topics that seem most important to discuss when considering whether to discontinue ADM. As perspectives of both patients and professionals were combined, the topics may provide patients and GPs with a broader and more balanced scope of factors to consider, and thus facilitate a better shared decision-making process.

Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors for prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its associated complications in people at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Alpha-glucosidase inhibitors (AGI) reduce blood glucose levels and may thus prevent or delay type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and its associated complications in people at risk of developing of T2DM. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of AGI in people with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), impaired fasting blood glucose (IFG), moderately elevated glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or any combination of these. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the reference lists of systematic reviews, articles and health technology assessment reports. The date of the last search of all databases was December 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with a duration of one year or more, comparing AGI with any pharmacological glucose-lowering intervention, behaviour-changing intervention, placebo or no intervention in people with IFG, IGT, moderately elevated HbA1c or combinations of these. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors read all abstracts and full-text articles or records, assessed quality and extracted outcome data independently. One review author extracted data, which were checked by a second review author. We resolved discrepancies by consensus or involvement of a third review author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model with assessment of risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for effect estimates. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence by using the GRADE instrument. MAIN RESULTS: For this update of the Cochrane Review (first published 2006, Issue 4) we included 10 RCTs (11,814 participants), eight investigating acarbose and two investigating voglibose, that included people with IGT or people "at increased risk for diabetes". The trial duration ranged from one to six years. Most trials compared AGI with placebo (N = 4) or no intervention (N = 4).Acarbose reduced the incidence of T2DM compared to placebo: 670 out of 4014 people (16.7%) in the acarbose groups developed T2DM, compared to 812 out of 3994 people (20.3%) in the placebo groups (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.89; P < 0.0001; 3 trials; 8008 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One trial including participants with coronary heart disease and IGT contributed 64% of cases for this outcome. Acarbose reduced the risk of T2DM compared to no intervention: 7 out 75 people (9.3%) in the acarbose groups developed T2DM, compared to 18 out of 65 people (27.7%) in the no-intervention groups (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69; P = 0.004; 2 trials; 140 participants; very low-certainty evidence).Acarbose compared to placebo did not reduce or increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; P = 0.86; 3 trials; 8069 participants; very low-certainty evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.10; P = 0.26; 3 trials; 8069 participants; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.29; P = 0.13; 2 trials; 6625 participants; low-certainty evidence), non-fatal stroke (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.74; P = 0.43; 1 trial; 1368 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or congestive heart failure (RR of 0.87; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.12; P = 0.40; 2 trials; 7890 participants; low-certainty evidence). Acarbose compared to placebo reduced non-fatal myocardial infarction: one out of 742 participants (0.1%) in the acarbose groups had a non-fatal myocardial infarction compared to 15 out of 744 participants (2%) in the placebo groups (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.53; P = 0.007; 2 trials; 1486 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Acarbose treatment showed an increased risk of non-serious adverse events (mainly gastro-intestinal events), compared to placebo: 751 of 775 people (96.9%) in the acarbose groups experienced an event, compared to 723 of 775 people (93.3%) in the placebo groups (RR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06; P = 0.0008; 2 trials; 1550 participants). Acarbose compared to no intervention showed no advantage or disadvantage for any of these outcome measures (very low-certainty evidence).One trial each compared voglibose with placebo (1780 participants) or diet and exercise (870 participants). Voglibose compared to placebo reduced the incidence of T2DM: 50 out of 897 participants (5.6%) developed T2DM, compared to 106 out of 881 participants (12%) in the placebo group (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.64; P < 0.0001; 1 trial; 1778 participants; low-certainty evidence). For all other reported outcome measures there were no clear differences between voglibose and comparator groups. One trial with 90 participants compared acarbose with diet and exercise and another trial with 98 participants reported data on acarbose versus metformin. There were no clear differences for any outcome measure between these two acarbose interventions and the associated comparator groups.None of the trials reported amputation of lower extremity, blindness or severe vision loss, end-stage renal disease, health-related quality of life, time to progression to T2DM, or socioeconomic effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: AGI may prevent or delay the development of T2DM in people with IGT. There is no firm evidence that AGI have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular events.

Improving GP communication in consultations on medically unexplained symptoms: a qualitative interview study with patients in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Many GPs find the care of patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) challenging. Patients themselves are often not satisfied with the care they receive. AIM: To explore the problems patients with MUS experience in communication during consultations, with the aim of improving such consultations DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews. METHOD: GP consultations were videorecorded and the GPs were asked immediately afterwards whether MUS were presented. Patients in these MUS consultations were asked to reflect on the consultation in a semi-structured interview while watching a recording of their own consultation. RESULTS: Of the 393 videorecorded consultations, 43 contained MUS. Patients who did identified six categories of problems. First, they reported a mismatch between the GP's and their own agenda. Second, patients indicated that the GP evoked an uncomfortable feeling in them during the consultation. Third, they found that GPs did not provide a specific management plan for their symptoms. Fourth, patients indicated that the GP was not well prepared for the consultation. Fifth, they perceived prejudices in the GP during the consultation. Finally, one patient found that the GP did not acknowledge a limited understanding of the origin of the symptoms. CONCLUSION: According to patients, GPs can improve their consultations on MUS by making genuine contact with their patients, by paying more attention to the patient's agenda, and by avoiding evoking uncomfortable feelings and displaying prejudices. They should prepare their consultations and focus on the issues that matter to patients, for example, symptom management. GPs should be honest to patients when they do not understand the origin of symptoms.

GPs' opinions of health assessment instruments for people with intellectual disabilities: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: GPs provide health care to people with intellectual disabilities (ID). People with ID find it difficult to express themselves concerning health-related matters. Applying health assessments is an effective method to reveal health needs, and can play a role in prevention and health promotion. AIM: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore GPs' considerations about applying a health assessment for people with ID. DESIGN AND SETTING: This focus group study was conducted among a selection of Dutch GPs. METHOD: An interview guide was developed. All discussions were audiorecorded and transcribed. Analysis was performed using the framework analysis approach. Two researchers independently applied open coding and identified a thematic framework. This framework and the summaries of views per theme were discussed in the research team. RESULTS: After four focus groups, with 23 GPs, saturation was reached. Three main themes evolved: health assessments in relation to GPs' responsibility; the usefulness and necessity of health assessments; and barriers to using health assessments on people with ID. A health assessment instrument for people with ID can help GPs to focus on certain issues that are not so common in the general population. GPs are motivated to use such a tool if it is scientifically tested, and results in significant health gains. However, GPs identify barriers at the level of GP, patient, and organisation. CONCLUSION: Most GPs in the focus groups consider providing medical care to people with ID their responsibility and indicate that a health assessment instrument could be a valuable tool. In order to deliver good care, they need education and support. Many barriers need to be overcome before a health assessment instrument can be implemented.

Mindfulness training for medical students in their clinical clerkships: two cross-sectional studies exploring interest and participation.

BACKGROUND: So far, studies investigating Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) training in medical students are conducted in self-selected, pre-clinical samples, with modest response rates without collecting data on non-participants. This study first examines interest and participation rates of students starting their clinical clerkships. Second, it compares students interested in a mindfulness training with non-interested students and students participating in a trial on the effect of MBSR with non-participating students on levels of psychological distress, personality traits, cognitive styles and mindfulness skills. METHODS: We examined two student samples from the Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen: Study 1 From March to December 2010 we performed a cross-sectional pilot-study among 4th year medical students starting their clinical clerkships, assessing interest in a MBSR training. We compared scores on the Brief Symptom Inventory, the Neo Five Factor Inventory and the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire of interested students with those of non-interested students using t-tests with Bonferroni correction. Study 2 From February 2011 to August 2012 we invited 4th year medical students starting their clinical clerkships to participate in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the effectiveness of MBSR. We compared scores on the Brief Symptom Inventory, the Irrational Beliefs Inventory and the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire of participating students with those of non-participants using t-tests with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Study 1: Ninety-five out of 179 participating students (53%) were interested in a MBSR training. Interested students scored significantly higher on psychological distress (p = .004) and neuroticism (p < .001), than 84 non-interested students. Study 2: Of 232 eligible students, 167 (72%) participated in our RCT. Participants scored significantly higher on psychological distress (p = .001), worrying (p = .002), problem avoidance (p = .005) and lower on mindfulness skills (p = .002) than 41 non-participants. CONCLUSIONS: Interest in mindfulness training and response rates in a RCT on the effectiveness of MBSR among clinical clerkship students are equal to (study 1) or higher (study 2) than in studies on pre-clinical students. Interested students and participants in a RCT reported more psychological distress and psychopathology related character traits. Participants scored lower on mindfulness skills.