Developing clinically relevant and reproducible symptom-defined populations for cancer diagnostic research in general practice using a community survey.

BACKGROUND: In developing cancer diagnostic studies, there is a particular need for the population of patients with symptoms of possible oncological significance who consult the GP in 'real life' to be comparable with the group of individuals with symptoms constructed as part of a research project. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to seek to assess whether a community-based symptom survey can be harnessed in order to produce clinically relevant and reproducible populations within which studies of more detailed indicants could be undertaken. METHOD: A total of 3629 patients registered with a general practice at Winterton, UK, were sent a questionnaire enquiring about 10 symptoms of possible oncological significance together with their consultation intention in relation to these symptoms. Up to 1 month later, an identical questionnaire was applied to all patients reporting at least one symptom, and more detailed information was obtained by research nurses on each symptom. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 64.4%, and 850 patients reported one or more symptoms. For the majority of symptom reports, there was moderate to substantial agreement between the two applications of the questionnaire. The question on blood in the motions/toilet pan or on the toilet paper demonstrated almost perfect agreement. Slight agreement was found for abdominal pain for longer than 4 weeks and for black/tarry motions. In relation to the reliability of the patient consultation intention, there was substantial/moderate agreement for actions related to the majority of symptoms. For all symptoms, there was also a greater level of agreement for past activity than future intent. CONCLUSION: The results of the study provide some support for a community survey as a mechanism to develop 'clinically relevant' populations for the iatrotropic symptoms rectal bleeding or indigestion/heartburn within which studies of more detailed indicants could be undertaken. There is also consistency with the work of others in relation to the numbers and characteristics of patients within the 'clinically relevant' population.

New-onset palpitations in general practice: assessing the discriminant value of items within the clinical history.

BACKGROUND: Palpitations are non-specific, with less than half of patients experiencing palpitations having a cardiac arrhythmia. Currently it seems that there is little evidence available to assist GPs in discriminating between patients complaining of palpitations who have significant cardiac arrhythmias and those who do not. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to estimate discriminant functions for specific items of clinical information in relation to the categorization of a patient (aged over 18 years) with a symptom of new-onset palpitations presenting to primary care. METHODS: A network of 62 GPs spread amongst 36 practices agreed to recruit patients with new-onset palpitations over the course of a 9-month study period. Patients consenting to be involved in the study were asked a number of questions, focusing particularly on the medical history, and were requested to complete a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Each patient was also provided with a RhythmCard cardiac event recorder for up to 2 weeks and was asked to record their heart rhythm if they experienced palpitations. Odds ratios (adjusted for age and sex) were used to compare the clinical information obtained from patients with the final diagnosis. RESULTS: Of the 139 patients with palpitations presenting to GPs, it would appear that males [odds ratio = 2.1 (1.0-4.5)], those with regular palpitations [odds ratio = 2.5 (1.0-5.8)], those experiencing palpitations at work [odds ratio = 3.0 (1.3-7.2)] and those experiencing palpitations affected by sleeping (odds ratio = 3.3 (1.4-7.7)] were more likely to have a cardiac cause for their palpitations. Similar findings were made in an analysis focusing solely on the 81 patients with a RhythmCard result. Furthermore, amongst this group, it is interesting to note that patients with regular palpitations were more than twice as likely to have a 'significant' cardiac arrhythmia as a cause for their palpitations. There were suggestions of dose-response effects between the rate of the palpitation, the duration of the palpitation and the likelihood of it being a 'significant' arrhythmia. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides some information on the characteristics of patients reporting palpitations to GPs who may have 'significant' cardiac arrhythmias. Based on this work, we believe that a larger community-based study would be worthwhile and would provide useful and useable clinical discriminant information for GPs in the settings where they work and amongst the types of patients they encounter.

Trends in negative defensive medicine within general practice.

Negative defensive medical practice has adverse consequences both for individual patients and for public health. This paper reports the results from a survey conducted in 1999 in which certain features indicative of negative defensive practice were compared with an identical survey conducted five years previously. Responding general practitioners stated that they are now significantly more likely to undertake diagnostic testing, refer patients, and avoid the treatment of certain conditions.

Diagnosis and general practice.

This discussion paper presents the case for a rigorous diagnostic research agenda within primary care. In view of unique aspects of primary care medicine and the relatively unselected nature of the populations encountered by general practitioners, it is clear that diagnostic research undertaken in other settings may be inapplicable. Most diagnostic studies adopt designs that seek to compare items, or clusters of items, of clinical information against a gold standard. In order to enhance the feasibility and rigour of such research within primary care, suggestions are made about priorities and specific key methodological issues. It is essential that the information generated by primary care diagnostic research should be reliable, valid, useful, and useable within general practice. The ultimate objective must be the identification of specific items, or small clusters of items, of clinical information of high discriminant ability among the groups of patients encountered in general practice.

Information and advice to patients with back pain can have a positive effect. A randomized controlled trial of a novel educational booklet in primary care.

STUDY DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial of a novel educational booklet compared with a traditional booklet for patients seeking treatment in primary care for acute or recurrent low back pain. OBJECTIVE: To test the impact of a novel educational booklet on patients' beliefs about back pain and functional outcome. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The information and advice that health professionals give to patients may be important in health care intervention, but there is little scientific evidence of their effectiveness. A novel patient educational booklet, The Back Book, has been developed to provide evidence-based information and advice consistent with current clinical guidelines. METHODS: One hundred sixty-two patients were given either the experimental booklet or a traditional booklet. The main outcomes studied were fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity, beliefs about the inevitable consequences of back trouble, the Roland Disability Questionnaire, and visual analogue pain scales. Postal follow-up response at 1 year after initial treatment was 78%. RESULTS: Patients receiving the experimental booklet showed a statistically significant greater early improvement in beliefs which was maintained at 1 year. A greater proportion of patients with an initially high fear-avoidance beliefs score who received the experimental booklet had clinically important improvement in fear-avoidance beliefs about physical activity at 2 weeks, followed by a clinically important improvement in the Roland Disability Questionnaire score at 3 months. There was no effect on pain. CONCLUSION: This trial shows that carefully selected and presented information and advice about back pain can have a positive effect on patients' beliefs and clinical outcomes, and suggests that a study of clinically important effects in individual patients may provide further insights into the management of low back pain.

Public health. When patients are a virtue.

A survey of doctors in public health revealed that less than a fifth were involved in clinical practice. But 72 per cent thought it would be appropriate for public health consultants to see patients. Responses revealed concerns that those not seeing patients might lack credibility with doctors in practice and could lose touch. Encouraging clinical involvement could enhance public health and the quality of patient care.

The family history in family practice: a questionnaire study.

OBJECTIVES: Our aims were to investigate family medical history taking in general practice, and to evaluate the value attached to the family medical history as an aid to decision making in general practice. METHOD: A postal questionnaire survey was conducted among all 291 GPs working within the Calderdale and Kirklees Health Authority area. Each questionnaire was followed by a reminder. The main outcome measures were answers to questions on routine and opportunistic family history taking and a question about transmitting knowledge about genetic risk to other members of the family. Questions were also posed about the value attached to the family medical history as an aid to decision making. RESULTS: A total of 193 GPs returned the questionnaire (response rate 66.3%). On registration, 94.3% of GPs indicated that enquiries were made about a family history of coronary heart disease. Breast and colorectal cancer were specifically asked about by 48.4% and 30.7% of GPs, respectively. One-fifth of respondents indicated that they asked a general question about family medical history. A little over one-quarter of respondents indicated that they made opportunistic enquiries about the family history or suggested that the patient should inform other members of the family about possible risks. In the scenarios highlighted in this study, the majority of respondents felt that the family medical history had value as an aid to decision making. This was particularly the case for checking a patient's cholesterol (92.1%) and for initiating referrals in younger patients with possible cancer-related symptoms (three-quarters of respondents). CONCLUSION: GPs value the family medical history as an aid to decision making. Unfortunately, apart from enquiries about coronary heart disease, routine or opportunistic family history taking is not occurring in practice. Mechanisms need to be sought to extract information from the family medical history so that it can be more effectively used by GPs.