Acceptance of inflammatory bowel disease treatment recommendations based on appropriateness ratings: do practicing gastroenterologists agree with experts?

BACKGROUND: Appropriateness criteria for the treatment of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) have been developed by expert panels. Little is known about the acceptance of such recommendations by care providers. The aim was to explore how treatment decisions of practicing gastroenterologists differ from those of experts, using a vignette case study and a focus group. METHODS: Seventeen clinical vignettes were drawn from clinical indications evaluated by the expert panel. A vignette case questionnaire asking for treatment options in 9 or 10 clinical situations was submitted to 26 practicing gastroenterologists. For each vignette case, practitioners' answers on treatments deemed appropriate were compared with panel decisions. Qualitative analysis was performed on focus group discussion to explore acceptance and divergence reasons. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-nine clinical vignettes were completed, 98 for CD and 141 for UC.Divergence between proposed treatments and panel recommendations was more frequent for CD (34%) than for UC (27%). Among UC clinical vignettes, the main divergences with the panel were linked to 5-aminosalicylate (5-ASA) failure assessment and to situations in which stopping treatment was the main decision. For CD, the propositions of care providers diverged from the panel in mild to moderate active disease, for which practitioners were more prone to an accelerated step-up than the panel's recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: In about one-third of vignette cases, inflammatory bowel disease treatment propositions made by practicing gastroenterologists diverged from expert recommendations. Practicing gastroenterologists may experience difficulty in applying recommendations in daily practice.

Convergences and divergences of diabetic patients' and healthcare professionals' opinions of care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate opinions' convergences and divergences of diabetic patients and health-care professionals on diabetes care and the development of a regional diabetes programme. BACKGROUND: Development and implementation of a regional diabetes programme. RESEARCH DESIGN: Qualitative study using focus groups to elicit diabetic patients' and health-care professionals' opinions, followed by content analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Eight focus groups: four focus groups with diabetic patients (n = 39) and four focus groups with various health-care professionals (n = 34) residing or practicing in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland, respectively. RESULTS: Perceived quality of diabetes care varied between individuals and types of participants. To improve quality, patients favoured a comprehensive follow-up while professionals suggested considering existing structures and trained professionals. All participants mentioned communication difficulties between professionals and were favouring teamwork. In addition, they described the role that patients should have in care and self-management. Financial difficulties were also mentioned by both groups of participants. Finally, they were in favour of the development of a regional diabetes programme adapted to actors' needs. For patients indeed, such a programme would represent an opportunity to improve information and to have access to comprehensive care. For professionals, it would help the development of local networks and the reinforcement of existing tools and structures. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Acknowledging convergences and divergences of opinions of both diabetic patients and health-care professionals should help the further development of a programme adapted to users' needs, taking all stakeholders interests and priorities into consideration.

Chronic disease management: a qualitative study investigating the barriers, facilitators and incentives perceived by Swiss healthcare stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Chronic disease management has been implemented for some time in several countries to tackle the increasing burden of chronic diseases. While Switzerland faces the same challenge, such initiatives have only emerged recently in this country. The aim of this study is to assess their feasibility, in terms of barriers, facilitators and incentives to participation. METHODS: To meet our aim, we used qualitative methods involving the collection of opinions of various healthcare stakeholders, by means of 5 focus groups and 33 individual interviews. All the data were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was then performed and five levels were determined to categorize the data: political, financial, organisational/ structural, professionals and patients. RESULTS: Our results show that, at each level, stakeholders share common opinions towards the feasibility of chronic disease management in Switzerland. They mainly mention barriers linked to the federalist political organization as well as to financing such programs. They also envision difficulties to motivate both patients and healthcare professionals to participate. Nevertheless, their favourable attitudes towards chronic disease management as well as the fact that they are convinced that Switzerland possesses all the resources (financial, structural and human) to develop such programs constitute important facilitators. The implementation of quality and financial incentives could also foster the participation of the actors. CONCLUSIONS: Even if healthcare stakeholders do not have the same role and interest regarding chronic diseases, they express similar opinions on the development of chronic disease management in Switzerland. Their overall positive attitude shows that it could be further implemented if political, financial and organisational barriers are overcome and if incentives are found to face the scepticism and non-motivation of some stakeholders.