Identifying barriers to vaccination intention at walk-in vaccination facilities in deprived neighbourhoods: A cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Low COVID-19 vaccination adherence in deprived neighbourhoods is problematic since the prevalence of chronic diseases associated with mortality rates due to COVID-19 is higher in these populations. The aim of this study is to provide an insight about beliefs and considerations relating to vaccination intention among inhabitants of deprived neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Easily accessible vaccination facilities at markets in deprived neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were recruited at three vaccination facilities that were set up at markets in deprived neighbourhoods in Rotterdam. A total of 124 surveys were retained for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19. RESULTS: The survey was filled out by 124 respondents; 62 % had - prior to visiting the easily accessible locations - intended to get a COVID-19 vaccine and 38 % were hesitant (22.3 % had doubts and 15.7 % did not plan to get vaccinated). Many people mentioned the convenience of an easily accessible location nearby. At the bivariate level, the influence of information from the family was associated with vaccination intention (p < 0.01). In a logistic regression model, both fear of vaccination and fear of side-effects were significantly associated with vaccination intention (ORs 0.56 (CI 0.35-0.89) and 0.47 (CI 0.30-0.73)). CONCLUSION: The accessibility of a vaccination facility, family influence and fear are relevant factors for the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 in people living in deprived neighbourhoods. Interventions should address these factors in order to increase vaccination uptake.

The role of socio-demographic and health factors during COVID-19 in remote access to GP care in low-income neighbourhoods: a cross-sectional survey of GP patients.

OBJECTIVES: Remote consultations were common in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. This approach may have affected access to GP care for people with low socio-economic status: this group has a high prevalence of chronic conditions and a higher mortality rate due to COVID-19. This study explores the association of sociodemographic and health factors with the decision to contact a GP practice, and care utilisation, among patients in low-income neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: General practice in low-income neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Patients from low-income neighbourhoods were selected from fourteen general practices on the basis of ethnic background, chronic disease or health literacy. Participants were stratified according to categories of these background characteristics to obtain equal numbers per category. A total of 213 surveys were retained for analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Need for GP contact, decision to contact a GP practice, and GP service utilisation. RESULTS: Forty-five percent (N = 88) of the participants experienced health problems for which they wished to consult their GP at the start of the outbreak of COVID-19. A majority of them (81%) had contact with a GP service. The need to contact the GP was significantly associated with financial difficulties (OR 2.20 CI (1.10 to 4.39)). An interaction effect was found of health literacy with concerns about COVID-19 with in respondents with low health literacy a significant association between concerns about COVID-19 and a need for a GP appointment (OR 5.33 CI (2.09 to 13.59)) and absence of a significant association in the higher health literacy group (OR 1.14 CI (0.51 to 2.56)) . Moreover, 56% (N = 74) of the participants received remote care at least one time during the first wave of COVID-19. Female participants used remote care more often (OR 3.22 CI (1.57 to 6.59)) and participants aged 50 and over used remote care less often (OR 0.46 CI (0.21 to 0.97)). CONCLUSION: Many patients in low-income neighbourhoods were able to consult a GP, often remotely. However from the equity perspective, access to GP care should be safeguarded for patients with health problems, financial difficulties and low health literacy because of their greater need to consult a GP during times of crisis.

[Developments in mental health care in Dutch general practices: an overview of recent studies]. / Ontwikkelingen in de Nederlandse huisartsenzorg voor psychische problemen: een overzicht van recente studies.

BACKGROUND: Dutch policy aims to strengthen mental health care in general practices, to keep health care affordable. Recently, a new function (mental health nurses) and a new referral model for patients with mental health problems were introduced.
AIM: To explore to what extent the volume of mental health care in Dutch general practices has increased and to what extent the content changed in the period 2010-2015.
METHOD: This study employed: 1. analyses of medical records, and 2. a case study in a primary health care centre.
RESULTS: The number of general practices with at least one mental health nurse increased from 20% in 2010 to almost 90% in 2015. In the period 2010-2014, general practitioners (gps) and mental health nurses treated increasing numbers of patients with mental health problems. No task shifting from gps to mental health nurses was observed. In the period 2011-2015, the number of antidepressant prescriptions increased slightly. In 2014, gps in a well-prepared primary care centre allocated 87% of their patients with mental health problems to a treatment setting in line with the referral model.
CONCLUSION: Dutch general practices have recently provided more mental health care, thereby emphasising their important role in the mental health care system.

Does training general practitioners result in more shared decision making during consultations?

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a clustered randomised controlled trial to study the effects of shared decision making (SDM) on patient recovery. This study aims to determine whether GPs trained in SDM and reinforcing patients' treatment expectations showed more trained behaviour during their consultations than untrained GPs. METHODS: We compared 86 consultations conducted by 23 trained GPs with 89 consultations completed by 19 untrained GPs. The primary outcomes were SDM, as measured by the OPTION scale, and positive reinforcement, as measured by global observation. Secondary outcomes were the level of autonomy in decision making and the duration of the consultation. RESULTS: Intervention consultations scored significantly higher on most elements of the OPTION scale, and on the autonomy scale; however, they were three minutes longer in duration, and the mean OPTION score of the intervention group remained below average. CONCLUSION: Training GPs resulted in more SDM behaviour and more autonomy for the patient; however, this increase is not attributable to the adoption of a patient perspective. Furthermore, while we aimed to demonstrate that SDM facilitates the reinforcement of patients' positive expectations, the measurement of this behaviour was not reliable. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In supporting SDM, professionals should give greater attention to patients' treatment expectations.

[Do mental health nurses take over care from general practitioners?] / Verlicht de POH-GGZ de werkdruk van de huisarts?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine mental health care provided by general practitioners and by mental health nurses working in general practices. DESIGN: Observational research. METHOD: We analysed how many consultations with patients with mental health problems were recorded in Dutch general practices in the period 2010-2014. General practices with and without a mental health nurse were compared, and we investigated which patients were mainly treated by mental health nurses. RESULTS: An increasing number of patients visited the GP for mental health problems in the period 2010-2014. GPs collaborating with a mental health nurse recorded a somewhat higher number of patients with mental health problems than GPs without a mental health nurse, but used as many consultations per patient. Mental health nurses mainly treat females, adult patients, and patients with common mental health problems. CONCLUSION: Mental health nurses do not take over care from GPs, but provide additional mental health care to patients with mental health problems. Collaborating with a mental health nurse might increase GPs' alertness to record mental health problems.