Perspectives on low-value care and barriers to de-implementation among primary care physicians: a multinational survey.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare costs are rising worldwide. At the same time, a considerable proportion of care does not benefit or may even be harmful to patients. We aimed to explore attitudes towards low-value care and identify the most important barriers to the de-implementation of low-value care use in primary care in high-income countries. METHODS: Between May and June 2022, we email surveyed primary care physicians in six high-income countries (Austria, Finland, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Sweden). Physician respondents were eligible if they had worked in primary care during the previous 24 months. The survey included four sections with categorized questions on (1) background information, (2) familiarity with Choosing Wisely recommendations, (3) attitudes towards overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and (4) barriers to de-implementation, as well as a section with open-ended questions on interventions and possible facilitators for de-implementation. We used descriptive statistics to present the results. RESULTS: Of the 16,935 primary care physicians, 1,731 answered (response rate 10.2%), 1,505 had worked in primary care practice in the last 24 months and were included in the analysis. Of the respondents, 53% had read Choosing Wisely recommendations. Of the respondents, 52% perceived overdiagnosis and 50% overtreatment as at least a problem to some extent in their own practice. Corresponding figures were 85% and 81% when they were asked regarding their country's healthcare. Respondents considered patient expectations (85% answered either moderate or major importance), patient's requests for treatments and tests (83%), fear of medical error (81%), workload/lack of time (81%), and fear of underdiagnosis or undertreatment (79%) as the most important barriers for de-implementation. Attitudes and perceptions of barriers differed significantly between countries. CONCLUSIONS: More than 80% of primary care physicians consider overtreatment and overdiagnosis as a problem in their country's healthcare but fewer (around 50%) in their own practice. Lack of time, fear of error, and patient pressures are common barriers to de-implementation in high-income countries and should be acknowledged when planning future healthcare. Due to the wide variety of barriers to de-implementation and differences in their importance in different contexts, understanding local barriers is crucial when planning de-implementation strategies.

Predictors of adherence in Austrian employees during the COVID-19 pandemic: results of an online survey.

Background: Since the beginning of the pandemic in December 2019, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a significant challenge to health care systems throughout the world. The introduction of measures to reduce the incidence of infection had a significant impact on the workplace. Overall, companies played a key and adaptive role in coping with the pandemic. Methods: Cross-sectional data from an online-survey of 1,183 employees conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2021 in Austria were used in the analyses. The influence of health beliefs (e.g., perceived severity), modifying factors (e.g., age) and time-dependent factors (e.g., corona fatigue) on individual adherence were evaluated. The conception of the questionnaire was based on the health belief model. Results: The majority of respondents were female (58.3%), worked in companies with more than 250 employees (56.6%) and had been to an academic secondary school or had a university degree (58.3%). Overall, employees were adherent to most of the measures at their company (>80%), except for wearing FFP-2 masks when they were travelling in a car with coworkers (59.3, 95%CI 51.3-66.7%). Overall adherence was associated with high ratings for the meaningfulness of testing (OR: 2.06 95%CI: 1.00-4.22; p = 0.049), the extent to which social norms govern behavior (OR: 6.61 95%CI: 4.66-9.36; p < 0.001), lower perceived difficulties associated with the adoption of health-promoting measures (OR: 0.37 95%CI: 0.16-0.82; p = 0.015) and lower corona fatigue (OR: 0.23 95%CI: 0.10-0.52; p < 0.001). Adherence to four single measures was influenced by different predictors. The most important predictors (important for the adherence to three out of four single measures) were social norms and corona fatigue. Conclusion: The importance attached to testing and social norms, as well as lower perceived barriers to health-promoting measures and low levels of corona fatigue all increase overall adherence to Covid-19 protective measures in companies. Strategies to improve adherence should be adapted depending on the aim (to raise overall adherence or adherence to individual measures) and on the group of persons that is being targeted.

Effects of task shifting from primary care physicians to nurses: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Task-shifting from primary care physicians (PCPs) to nurses is one option to better and more efficiently meet the needs of the population in primary care and to overcome PCP shortages. This protocol outlines an overview of systematic reviews to assess the effects of delegation or substitution by nurses of PCPs' activities regarding clinical, patient-relevant, professional and health services-related outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic literature search for secondary literature in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and Health Technology Assessments in German and English comprising randomised controlled trials and prospective controlled trials will be considered for inclusion. Search terms will include Medical Subject Headings combined with free text words. At least one-third of abstracts and full-text articles are reviewed by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire. We will only consider reviews if they include controlled trials, if the profession that substituted or delegated tasks was a nurse, if the profession of the control was a PCP, if the assessed intervention was the same in the intervention and control group and if the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire score is ≥5. The corrected covered area will be calculated to describe the degree of overlap of studies in the reviews included in the study. We will report the overview according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The overview of secondary literature does not require the approval of an Ethics Committee and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020183327.

Palliative Care Survey: Awareness, Knowledge and Views of the Styrian Population in Austria.

BACKGROUND: No population-based data on awareness and knowledge of palliative care currently exist in Austria. We therefore conducted a survey to determine the general awareness and knowledge of palliative care in Styria, a federal state in Austria. We also asked participants to imagine what services they would need as a patient or family member, where they themselves would like to receive such services, and what fears they imagined patients with a terminal illness would have. METHODS: A descriptive cross-sectional survey consisting of 18 questions that address several aspects of palliative care was carried out in the adult population of Styria, Austria, from October 2019 to March 2020. RESULTS: A total of 419 questionnaires were analyzed, whereby 70.3% of respondents had at least heard of palliative care. Of these, significantly more were female, had a university degree and were aged 50 to 64. The main goal of palliative care was chosen correctly by 67.1% of participants, with the proportion of correct answers increasing in line with education and reaching 82.0% among university graduates. Overall, 73.2% believed that the greatest need of terminally ill persons was a reduction in physical suffering, whereas the greatest perceived need of relatives was the availability of specialist care around the clock. About one-third believed that the greatest fear of palliative patients was that of death, which was chosen significantly more often by men than women. If terminally ill, some 39% of respondents would wish to be looked after at home by professional carers, and women and people that had completed high school chose this answer significantly more often. The most desired service that should be provided to patients and relatives was home pain management at 69.9%, followed by time off for family caregivers at 58.0%. This item was chosen significantly more often by women. CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate the care of severely ill patients at home, it would make sense to develop targeted information campaigns. These should also attempt to deliver targeted information to less informed groups of people, such as young, poorly educated men, in order to raise their awareness of the difficulties and challenges of providing care to terminally ill patients and thus increase the acceptance of support options.

COVI-Prim Longitudinal Survey: Experiences of Primary Care Physicians During the Early Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: General practitioners (GPs) are the mainstay of primary care and play a critical role in pandemics. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, this international study aimed to explore changes in the workload of general practitioners, as well as their interactions with patients and colleagues, and their self-confidence and concerns. Methods: An online survey was conducted among GPs in Austria and Germany. Participants were asked to answer a basic questionnaire and participate in a subsequent longitudinal survey containing closed and open-ended items. All data were pseudonymized. Results: Overall, 723 general practitioners from Austria and Germany took part in the longitudinal survey over a period of 12 weeks (April 3-July 2, 2020). The majority of GPs had less direct contact with patients at the beginning of the survey (96 vs. 49% at the end of the study period). At first, doctors were mainly concerned with pandemic-related issues and had to care for the patients of GP colleagues that were in quarantine, which meant they had less time for routine work such as screenings and treating chronic diseases. Over the survey period, GPs' self-confidence increased and their concerns about income loss decreased. Conclusions: Following a difficult initial phase when protective equipment and information were lacking, physicians in primary care adapted quickly to new situations. Experience with telemedicine should help them face future challenges and may help prevent a decline in the delivery of routine health care and care for chronically ill patients. Registration: Trial registration at the German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00021231.

COVI-Prim survey: Challenges for Austrian and German general practitioners during initial phase of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents a significant challenge to health care systems around the world. A well-functioning primary care system is crucial in epidemic situations as it plays an important role in the development of a system-wide response. METHODS: 2,187 Austrian and German GPs answered an internet survey on preparedness, testing, staff protection, perception of risk, self-confidence, a decrease in the number of patient contacts, and efforts to control the spread of the virus in the practice during the early phase of the COVID-pandemic (3rd to 30th April). RESULTS: The completion rate of the questionnaire was high (90.9%). GPs gave low ratings to their preparedness for a pandemic, testing of suspected cases and efforts to protect staff. The provision of information to GPs and the perception of risk were rated as moderate. On the other hand, the participants rated their self-confidence, a decrease in patient contacts and their efforts to control the spread of the disease highly. CONCLUSION: Primary care is an important resource for dealing with a pandemic like COVID-19. The workforce is confident and willing to take an active role, but needs to be provided with the appropriate surrounding conditions. This will require that certain conditions are met. REGISTRATION: Trial registration at the German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00021231.

How many women take oral supplementation in pregnancy in Austria? : Who recommended it? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency anemia is common in pregnancy with a prevalence of approximately 16% in Austria; however, international guideline recommendations on screening and subsequent treatment with iron preparations are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to find out how often pregnant women take iron-containing supplements, and who recommended them. As hemoglobin data were available for a sub-group of women, hemoglobin status during pregnancy and associated consumption of iron-containing medications were also recorded. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at the Mother-Child-Booklet service center of the Styrian Health Insurance Fund in Graz, Austria. A questionnaire containing seven questions was developed. Absolute and relative numbers were determined, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals calculated using bootstrapping techniques. RESULTS: A total of 325 women completed the questionnaire, 11% had been diagnosed with anemia before becoming pregnant, 67% reported taking iron-containing compounds. The women reported taking 45 different products but 61% took 1 of 3 different supplements. Overall, 185 (57%) women had not been diagnosed with anemia before becoming pregnant but reported taking an iron-containing supplement and 89% of the women took supplements on the recommendation of their physician. Of the 202 women whose hemoglobin status was assessed, 92% were found not to be anemic. CONCLUSION: Overall, 67% of pregnant women took iron-containing compounds, irrespective of whether they were deficient in iron. Physicians were generally responsible for advising them to take them. No standardized procedure is available on which to base the decision whether to take iron during pregnancy, even in guidelines. As most guidelines only recommend taking iron supplements in cases of anemia, the high percentage of women taking them in Austria is incomprehensible.