German wide cross sectional survey on health impacts of electromagnetic fields in the view of general practitioners

Background The COVID-19 pandemic significantly changed the work of general practitioners (GPs). At the onset of the pandemic in March 2020, German outpatient practices had to adapt quickly. Pandemic preparedness (PP) of GPs may play a vital role in their management of a pandemic. Objectives The study aimed to examine the association in the stock of seven personal protective equipment (PPE) items and knowledge of pandemic plans on perceived PP among GPs. Methods Three multivariable linear regression models were developed based on an online cross-sectional survey for the period March–April 2020 (the onset of the pandemic in Germany). Data were collected using self-developed items on self-assessed PP and knowledge of a pandemic plan and its utility. The stock of seven PPE items was queried. For PPE items, three different PPE scores were compared. Control variables for all models were gender and age. Results In total, 508 GPs were included in the study; 65.16% believed that they were very poorly or poorly prepared. Furthermore, 13.83% of GPs were aware of a pandemic plan; 40% rated those plans as beneficial. The stock of FFP-2/3 masks, protective suits, face shields, safety glasses, and medical face masks were mostly considered completely insufficient or insufficient, whereas disposable gloves and disinfectants were considered sufficient or completely sufficient. The stock of PPE was significantly positively associated with PP and had the largest effect on PP; the association of the knowledge of a pandemic plan was significant but small. PPE scores did not vary considerably in their explanatory power. The assessment of a pandemic plan as beneficial did not significantly affect PP. Conclusion The stock of PPE seems to be the determining factor for PP among German GPs; for COVID-19, sufficient masks are the determining factor. Knowledge of a pandemic plans play a secondary role in PP.

Download Full-text

Task shifting from general practitioners to practice assistants and nurses in primary care: a cross-sectional survey in 34 countries

Primary Health Care Research & Development ◽

10.1017/s1463423621000657 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 ◽

Author(s):

Peter P. Groenewegen ◽

Wienke G. W. Boerma ◽

Peter Spreeuwenberg ◽

Bohumil Seifert ◽

Willemijn Schäfer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

General Practitioners ◽

Professional Training ◽

Institutional Development ◽

Task Shifting ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Independent Variables ◽

Nurse Prescribing ◽

Number Of Patients

Abstract Aim: To describe variation in task shifting from general practitioners (GPs) to practice assistants/nurses in 34 countries, and to explain differences by analysing associations with characteristics of the GPs, their practices and features of the health care systems. Background: Redistribution of tasks and responsibilities in primary care are driven by changes in demand for care, such as the growing number of patients with chronic conditions, and workforce developments, including staff shortage. The need to manage an expanding range of services has led to adaptations in the skill mix of primary care teams. However, these developments are hampered by barriers between professional domains, which can be rigid as a result of strict regulation, traditional attitudes and lack of trust. Methods: Data were collected between 2011 and 2013 through a cross-sectional survey among approximately 7200 GPs in 34 countries. The dependent variable ‘task shifting’ is measured through a composite score of GPs’ self-reported shifting of tasks. Independent variables at GP and practice level are: innovativeness; part-time working; availability of staff; location and population of the practice. Country-level independent variables are: institutional development of primary care; demand for and supply of care; nurse prescribing as an indicator for professional boundaries; professionalisation of practice assistants/nurses (indicated by professional training, professional associations and journals). Multilevel analysis is used to account for the clustering of GPs in countries. Findings: Countries vary in the degree of task shifting by GPs. Regarding GP and practice characteristics, use of electronic health record applications (as an indicator for innovativeness) and age of the GPs are significantly related to task shifting. These variables explain only little variance at the level of GPs. Two country variables are positively related to task shifting: nurse prescribing and professionalisation of primary care nursing. Professionalisation has the strongest relationship, explaining 21% of the country variation.

Download Full-text

Weight assessment and the provision of weight management advice in primary care: a cross-sectional survey of self-reported practice among general practitioners and practice nurses in the United Kingdom

BMC Family Practice ◽

10.1186/s12875-020-01184-z ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Nathan Critchlow ◽

Gillian Rosenberg ◽

Harriet Rumgay ◽

Robert Petty ◽

Jyotsna Vohra

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

United Kingdom ◽

Weight Management ◽

General Practitioners ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Practice Nurses ◽

The United Kingdom ◽

Management Advice

Download Full-text

A cross-sectional survey of awareness of human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal cancers among general practitioners in the UK

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023339 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (7) ◽

pp. e023339 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Matt Lechner ◽

Claire Vassie ◽

Cemal Kavasogullari ◽

Oliver Jones ◽

James Howard ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factor ◽

Human Papillomavirus ◽

General Practitioners ◽

Further Education ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Chewing Tobacco ◽

The Uk ◽

Epidemiological Trends

ObjectivesTo examine the level of awareness of the link between human papillomavirus (HPV) and oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) and epidemiological trends in HPV-related OPC among general practitioners (GPs) in the UK.DesignCross-sectional survey.Participants384 GPs from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.SettingThe survey was administered at GP training courses and via email to lists of training course attendees.Primary and secondary outcome measuresProportion of respondents aware of the link between HPV and OPC; respondents’ self-rated knowledge of OPC; proportion of participants aware of the epidemiological trends in HPV-associated OPC.Results384 questionnaires were completed with an overall response rate of 72.9%. 74.0% of participants recognised HPV as a risk factor for OPC, which was lower than knowledge about the role of smoking, chewing tobacco and alcohol consumption (all >90% recognition). Overall, 19.4% rated their knowledge of OPC as very good or good, 62.7% as average and 17.7% as poor or very poor. The majority (71.9%) were aware that rates of HPV-associated OPC have increased over the last two decades. Fewer than half (41.5%) of the participants correctly identified being male as a risk factor of HPV-associated OPC, while 58.8% were aware that patients with HPV-associated OPC tend to be younger than those with non-HPV-associated disease.ConclusionsThe association of HPV infection with OPC is a relatively recent discovery. Although the level of awareness of HPV and OPC among GPs was high, the characteristics of HPV-associated OPC were less well recognised, indicating the need for further education.

Download Full-text

Hospital organizational factors influence work–family conflict in registered nurses: Multilevel modeling of a nation-wide cross-sectional survey in Sweden

International Journal of Nursing Studies ◽

10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2013.09.010 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 51 (5) ◽

pp. 744-751 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

C. Leineweber ◽

H.S. Chungkham ◽

H. Westerlund ◽

C. Tishelman ◽

R. Lindqvist

Keyword(s):

Registered Nurses ◽

Multilevel Modeling ◽

Family Conflict ◽

Organizational Factors ◽

Work Family Conflict ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Wide Cross ◽

Work Family

Download Full-text

Knowledge and attitudes of Australian general practitioners towards medicinal cannabis: a cross-sectional survey

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022101 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (7) ◽

pp. e022101 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Emily A Karanges ◽

Anastasia Suraev ◽

Natalie Elias ◽

Ramesh Manocha ◽

Iain S McGregor

Keyword(s):

General Practitioners ◽

Prescription Drugs ◽

Strong Support ◽

Therapeutic Effects ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Perceived Knowledge ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Knowledge And Attitudes ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

Medicinal Cannabis

ObjectivesTo examine the knowledge and attitudes of Australian general practitioners (GP) towards medicinal cannabis, including patient demand, GP perceptions of therapeutic effects and potential harms, perceived knowledge and willingness to prescribe.Design, setting and participantsA cross-sectional survey completed by 640 GPs (response rate=37%) attending multiple-topic educational seminars in five major Australian cities between August and November 2017.Main outcome measuresNumber of patients enquiring about medicinal cannabis, perceived knowledge of GPs, conditions where GPs perceived it to be beneficial, willingness to prescribe, preferred models of access, perceived adverse effects and safety relative to other prescription drugs.ResultsThe majority of GPs (61.5%) reported one or more patient enquiries about medicinal cannabis in the last three months. Most felt that their own knowledge was inadequate and only 28.8% felt comfortable discussing medicinal cannabis with patients. Over half (56.5%) supported availability on prescription, with the preferred access model involving trained GPs prescribing independently of specialists. Support for use of medicinal cannabis was condition-specific, with strong support for use in cancer pain, palliative care and epilepsy, and much lower support for use in depression and anxiety.ConclusionsThe majority of GPs are supportive or neutral with regards to medicinal cannabis use. Our results highlight the need for improved training of GPs around medicinal cannabis, and the discrepancy between GP-preferred models of access and the current specialist-led models.

Download Full-text