Unfavourable working conditions for female GPs. A comparison between Swedish general practitioners and district nurses

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to analyse gender and occupational differences in the psychosocial working conditions of general practitioners (GPs) and district nurses (DNs) in Sweden. DESIGN: A stratified random sample of GPs (n = 566) and DNs (n = 554) from four county councils in Sweden. The overall participation rate was 83%. SETTING: Primary health care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A mailed questionnaire comprising 10 items providing demographic data and 36 items on psychosocial working conditions was used. The questionnaire had been tested for validity and reliability. A factor analysis included five items: strains and symptoms, professional content, social support at work, workload and job control. RESULTS: Professional content was the most positively rated aspect, whereas workload was the most negatively rated. GPs perceived a higher workload and lower social support than did the DNs. Female GPs scored significantly more negatively than both male GPs and female DNs did in four out of the five factors. Female GPs reported a high workload, low job control and low social support at work. Female DNs, too, reported a high workload, relatively low job control but fairly strong social support. CONCLUSION: Female GPs perceived more unfavourable psychosocial working conditions than both male GPs and female DNs did in the same organisational setting.     

Adherence to a guideline on cardiovascular prevention: a comparison between general practitioners and practice nurses

Background

Patient non-compliance with prescribed treatment is an important factor in the lack of success in cardiovascular prevention. Another important cause is non-adherence of caregivers to the guidelines. It is not known how doctors and nurses differ in the application of guidelines. Patient compliance to treatment may vary according to the type of caregiver.

Objective

To compare adherence to cardiovascular prevention delivered by practice nurses and by general practitioners.

Setting

Six primary health care centres in the Netherlands (25 general practitioners, six practice nurses).

Methods

701 high risk patients were included in a randomised trial. Half of the patients received nurse-delivered care and half received care by general practitioners. For 91% of the patients treatment concerned secondary prevention. The Dutch guideline on cardiovascular prevention was used as protocol. A structured self-administered questionnaire was sent by post to patients. Data were extracted from the practice database and the questionnaire.

Results

Intervention was received by 77% of respondents who visited the practice nurse compared to 57% from the general practitioner group (OR = 2.56, p < 0.01). More lifestyle intervention was given by the practice nurse; 46% of patients received at least one lifestyle intervention (weight, diet, exercise, and smoking) compared to 13% in general practitioner group (OR = 3.24, p < 0.001). In addition, after one year more patients from the practice nurse group used cardiovascular drugs (OR = 1.9, p = 0.03). Nurses inquired more frequently about patient compliance to medical treatment (OR = 2.1, p < 0.01). Regarding patient compliance, no statistical difference between study groups in this trial was found.

Conclusion

Practice nurses adhered better to the Dutch guideline on cardiovascular prevention than general practitioners did. Lifestyle intervention advice was more frequently given by practice nurses. Improvement of cardiovascular prevention is still necessary. Both caregivers should inquire about patient adherence on a regular basis.