General medical practitioners' knowledge and beliefs about osteoporosis and its investigation and management.

UNLABELLED: This qualitative study explored beliefs and attitudes regarding osteoporosis and its management. General medical practitioners (GPs) were ambivalent about osteoporosis due to concern about financial barriers for patients and their own beliefs about the salience of osteoporosis. GPs considered investigation and treatment in the context of patients' whole lives. PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate barriers, enablers, and other factors influencing the investigation and management of osteoporosis using a qualitative approach. This paper analyses data from discussions with general medical practitioners (GPs) about their beliefs and attitudes regarding osteoporosis and its management. METHODS: Fourteen GPs and two practice nurses aged 27-89 years participated in four focus groups, from June 2010 to March 2011. Each group comprised 3-5 participants, and discussions were semi-structured, according to the protocol developed for the main study. Discussion points ranged from the circumstances under which GPs would initiate investigation for osteoporosis and their subsequent actions to their views about treatment efficacy and patient adherence to prescribed treatment. Audio recordings were transcribed and coded for analysis using analytic comparison to identify the major themes. RESULTS: The GPs were not particularly concerned about osteoporosis in their patients or the general population, ranking diabetes, osteoarthritis, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension higher than concern about osteoporosis. They expressed confidence in the efficacy of anti-fracture medications but were concerned about the potential financial burden on patients with limited incomes. The GPs were unsure about guidelines for investigation and management of osteoporosis in men and the appropriate duration of treatment, particularly for the bisphosphonates in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: The GPs' ambivalence about osteoporosis appeared to stem from structural factors such as financial barriers for patients and their own beliefs about the salience of osteoporosis. GPs considered the impact of investigating and prescribing treatment in the context of patients' whole lives.

[General practice research supervision]. / Almenmedicinsk forskningsvejledning.

INTRODUCTION: General practice is a subject with a relatively short scientific tradition. The purpose of this study was to elucidate who gives long-cycle general practice research supervision in Denmark, who is supervised and how research students get on. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All research students with research advisers in the field of general practice filled out a questionnaire in 1997 (n = 50) and 2003 (n = 52). There were questions about project/research training, professional education, advisers and the students' attitude to taking on advisory functions in the future. In 2003, 48 of those from the 1997 cohort also answered a follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: The number of research students with a connection to the general practice research field was fairly constant from 1997 to 2003. The number of permanently employed general practice advisers, on the other hand, has doubled, and these now undertake more of the advisory functions. The great majority of research students complete their projects, most of them at PhD level. Most of the research students surveyed indicated that they are prepared to take on advisory functions when they have acquired the competence to do so. DISCUSSION: The general practice research students vary greatly with regard to age, interests and career paths, but almost all complete their research studies. This may be due to the flexible framework for research in general practice and the increase in recent years of advisory capacity in general practice. This positive development is expected to continue through the development of networks, course activities and continuing follow-up of the advisory functions.