Prognostic factors for musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Estimating the future course of musculoskeletal pain is an important consideration in the primary care consultation for patients and healthcare professionals. Studies of prognostic indicators tend to have been viewed in relation to each site separately, however, an alternative view is that some prognostic indicators may be common across different sites of musculoskeletal pain. AIM: To identify generic prognostic indicators for patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review. SETTING: Observational cohort studies in primary care. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO and CINAHL electronic databases were searched from inception to April 2006. Inclusion criteria were that the study was a primary care-based cohort, published in English and contained information on prognostic indicators for musculoskeletal conditions. RESULTS: Forty-five studies were included. Eleven factors, assessed at baseline, were found to be associated with poor outcome at follow up for at least two different regional pain complaints: higher pain severity at baseline, longer pain duration, multiple-site pain, previous pain episodes, anxiety and/or depression, higher somatic perceptions and/or distress, adverse coping strategies, low social support, older age, higher baseline disability, and greater movement restriction. CONCLUSION: Despite substantial heterogeneity in the design and analysis of original studies, this review has identified potential generic prognostic indicators that may be useful when assessing any regional musculoskeletal pain complaint. However, Its unclear whether these indicators, used alone, or in combination, can correctly estimate the likely course of individual patients' problems. Further research is needed, particularly in peripheral joint pain and using assessment methods feasible for routine practice.     

Diagnostic value of symptoms of oesophagogastric cancers in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Selection of primary care patients for investigation of potential oesophagogastric cancer is difficult, as the symptoms may represent benign conditions, which are also more common.

Aim

To review systematically the presenting features of oesophagogastric cancers in primary care, including open-access endoscopy clinics.

Design and setting

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Method

MEDLINE^®, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched for studies of adults who were symptomatic and presented in primary care or open-access endoscopy clinics. Exclusions were being asymptomatic, screening, or recurrent cancers. Data were extracted to estimate the diagnostic performance of features of oesophagogastric cancers and summarised in a meta-analysis.

Results

Fourteen studies were identified. The strongest summary sensitivity and specificity estimates were for: dyspepsia 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29 to 0.56) and 0.48 (95% CI = 0.31 to 0.65); pain 0.41 (95% CI = 0.24 to 0.62) and 0.75 (95% CI = 0.51 to 0.89); and dysphagia 0.32 (95% CI = 0.17 to 0.52) and 0.92 (95% CI = 0.81 to 0.97). Summary positive likelihood ratios (LR+) and diagnostic odds ratios were: dyspepsia 0.79 (95% CI = 0.55 to 1.15) and 0.65 (95% CI = 0.32 to 1.33); pain 1.64 (95% CI = 1.20 to 2.24) and 2.09 (95% CI = 1.57 to 2.77); and dysphagia 4.32 (95% CI = 2.46 to 7.58) and 5.91 (95% CI = 3.56 to 9.82). Corresponding LR+ were: anaemia 4.32 (95% CI = 2.64 to 7.08); nausea/vomiting/bloating 1.07 (95% CI = 0.52 to 2.19); reflux 0.78 (95% CI = 0.47 to 1.78) and; weight loss 5.46 (95% CI = 3.47 to 8.60).

Conclusion

Dysphagia, weight loss, and anaemia show the strongest association but with relatively low sensitivity and high specificity. The findings support the value of investigation of these symptoms, but also suggest that, in a population of patients who are low risk but not no-risk, investigation is not currently recommended.     

Children at risk of medicinal and non-medicinal poisoning: a population-based case-control study in general practice

Background

Preschool children have a high risk of poisoning. While medicines prescribed by primary care are potential poisoning agents, the risk factors for poisoning from medication are not well described.

Aim

To identify risk factors for medicinal and non-medicinal poisoning in preschool children.

Design and setting

Population-based nested case-control study using The Health Improvement Network primary care database 1988–2004.

Method

Conditional logistic regression was used to identify child, maternal, and social risk factors for medicinal (1316 cases) and non-medicinal poisoning (503 cases), using 17 709 controls matched on general practice.

Results

Poisoning by medicines was independently associated with deprivation (test for trend P<0.001), maternal age (P<0.001), birth order (P<0.001), maternal alcohol misuse (odds ratio [OR] = 5.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.99 to 14.91), and perinatal depression (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.26 to 1.88). Living in a household with two or more adults lowered the odds of injury compared to single-parent households (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.96) and the odds varied by age, being highest in 2 year olds (OR = 9.61, 95% CI = 7.73 to 11.95). Non-medicinal poisoning was associated with deprivation (P = 0.001), maternal age (P<0.001), and birth order (P<0.001). The odds were raised in 1 year olds (OR = 5.44, 95% CI = 4.07 to 7.26) and 2 year olds (OR = 5.07, 95% CI = 3.73 to 6.90) compared to those aged <1 year.

Conclusion

Primary care data can be used to target interventions to children at risk of poisoning. This is pertinent when prescribing for children/family members, as prescribed medications may become poisoning agents. Prompt identification of maternal depression and alcohol misuse, and delivery of poisoning-prevention interventions at this stage may help prevent poisonings.     

Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: a systematic review

Background

Empathy as a characteristic of patient–physician communication in both general practice and clinical care is considered to be the backbone of the patient–physician relationship. Although the value of empathy is seldom debated, its effectiveness is little discussed in general practice. This literature review explores the effectiveness of empathy in general practice. Effects that are discussed are: patient satisfaction and adherence, feelings of anxiety and stress, patient enablement, diagnostics related to information exchange, and clinical outcomes.

Aim

To review the existing literature concerning all studies published in the last 15 years on the effectiveness of physician empathy in general practice.

Design and setting

Systematic literature search.

Method

Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, and PsychINFO databases were undertaken, with citation searches of key studies and papers. Original studies published in English between July 1995 and July 2011, containing empirical data about patient experience of GPs’ empathy, were included. Qualitative assessment was applied using Giacomini and Cook’s criteria.

Results

After screening the literature using specified selection criteria, 964 original studies were selected; of these, seven were included in this review after applying quality assessment. There is a good correlation between physician empathy and patient satisfaction and a direct positive relationship with strengthening patient enablement. Empathy lowers patients’ anxiety and distress and delivers significantly better clinical outcomes.

Conclusion

Although only a small number of studies could be used in this search, the general outcome seems to be that empathy in the patient–physician communication in general practice is of unquestionable importance.     

Referral interventions from primary to specialist care: a systematic review of international evidence

Background

Demand management defines any method used to monitor, direct, or regulate patient referrals. Strategies have been developed to manage the referral of patients to secondary care, with interventions that target primary care, specialist services, or infrastructure.

Aim

To review the international evidence on interventions to manage referral from primary to specialist care.

Design and setting

Systematic review.

Method

Iterative, systematic searches of published and unpublished sources public health, health management, management, and grey literature databases from health care and other industries were undertaken to identify recent, relevant studies. A narrative synthesis of the data was completed to structure the evidence into groups of similar interventions.

Results

The searches generated 8327 unique results, of which 140 studies were included. Interventions were grouped into four intervention categories: GP education (n = 50); process change (n = 49); system change (n = 38); and patient-focused (n = 3). It is clear that there is no ‘magic bullet’ to managing demand for secondary care services: although some groups of interventions may have greater potential for development, given the existing evidence that they can be effective in specific contexts.

Conclusions

To tackle demand management of primary care services, the focus cannot be on primary care alone; a whole-systems approach is needed because the introduction of interventions in primary care is often just the starting point of the referral process. In addition, more research is needed to develop and evaluate interventions that acknowledge the role of the patient in the referral decision.     

Primary care organisational interventions for secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundIschaemic heart disease (IHD) is the most common cause of death worldwide.AimTo determine the long-term impact of organisational interventions for secondary prevention of IHD.MethodSearches were conducted for randomised controlled trials of patients with established IHD, with long-term follow-up, of cardiac secondary prevention programmes targeting organisational change in primary care or community settings. A random-effects model was used and risk ratios were calculated.ResultsFive studies were included with 4005 participants. Meta-analysis of four studies with mortality data at 4.7–6 years showed that organisational interventions were associated with approximately 20% reduced mortality, with a risk ratio (RR) for all-cause mortality of 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 0.93), and a RR for cardiac-related mortality of 0.74 (95% CI = 0.58 to 0.94). Two studies reported mortality data at 10 years. Analysis of these data showed no significant differences between groups. There were insufficient data to conduct a meta-analysis on the effect of interventions on hospital admissions. Additional analyses showed no significant association between organisational interventions and risk factor management or appropriate prescribing at 4.7–6 years.ConclusionCardiac secondary prevention programmes targeting organisational change are associated with a reduced risk of death for at least 4–6 years. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether this beneficial effect is maintained indefinitely.     

Sleep duration and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Epidemiologic studies have shown that sleep duration is associated with overall mortality. We conducted a systematic review of the associations between sleep duration and all-cause and cause-specific mortality. PubMed was systematically searched up to January, 2008 to identify studies examining the association between sleep duration and mortality (both all-cause and cause-specific) among adults. Data were abstracted serially in a standardized manner by two reviewers and analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis. Twenty-three studies assessing the associations between sleep duration and mortality were identified. All examined sleep duration measured using participant self-report. Among the 16 studies which had similar reference categories and reported sufficient data on short sleep and mortality for meta-analyses, the pooled relative risk (RR) for all-cause mortality for short sleep duration was 1.10 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06, 1.15]. For cardiovascular-related and cancer-related mortality, the RRs associated with short sleep were 1.06 (95% CI: 0.94, 1.18) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.88, 1.13), respectively. Similarly, among the 17 studies reporting data on long sleep duration and mortality, the pooled RRs comparing the long sleepers with medium sleepers were 1.23 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.30) for all-cause mortality, 1.38 (95% CI: 1.13, 1.69) for cardiovascular-related mortality, and 1.21 (95% CI: 1.11, 1.32) for cancer-related mortality. Our findings indicate that both short sleepers and long sleepers are at increased risk of all-cause mortality. Further research using objective measures of sleep duration is needed to fully characterize these associations.     

Screening for increased cardiometabolic risk in primary care: a systematic review

Background

Many programmes to detect and prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been performed, but the optimal strategy is not yet clear.

Aim

To present a systematic review of cardiometabolic screening programmes performed among apparently healthy people (not yet known to have CVD, diabetes, or cardiometabolic risk factors) and mixed populations (apparently healthy people and people diagnosed with risk factor or disease) to define the optimal screening strategy.

Design and setting

Systematic review of studies performed in primary care in Western countries.

Method

MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched for studies screening for increased cardiometabolic risk. Exclusion criteria were studies designed to assess prevalence of risk factors without follow-up or treatment; without involving a GP; when fewer than two risk factors were considered as the primary outcome; and studies constrained to ethnic minorities.

Results

The search strategy yielded 11 445 hits; 26 met the inclusion criteria. Five studies (1995–2012) were conducted in apparently healthy populations: three used a stepwise method. Response rates varied from 24% to 79%. Twenty-one studies (1967–2012) were performed in mixed populations; one used a stepwise method. Response rates varied from 50% to 75%. Prevalence rates could not be compared because of heterogeneity of used thresholds and eligible populations. Observed time trends were a shift from mixed to apparently healthy populations, increasing use of risk scores, and increasing use of stepwise screening methods.

Conclusion

The optimal screening strategy in primary care is likely stepwise, in apparently healthy people, with the use of risk scores. Increasing public awareness and actively involving GPs might facilitate screening efficiency and uptake.     

Effectiveness of exercise-referral schemes to promote physical activity in adults: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the health benefits of physical activity, most adults do not take the recommended amount of exercise. AIM: To assess whether exercise-referral schemes are effective in improving exercise participation in sedentary adults. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review. METHOD: Studies were identified by searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, The Cochrane Library and SIGLE until March 2007. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, process evaluations and qualitative studies of exercise-referral schemes, defined as referral by a primary care clinician to a programme that encouraged physical activity or exercise were included. RCT results were combined in a meta-analysis where there was sufficient homogeneity. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the review. These comprised six RCTs, one non-randomised controlled study, four observational studies, six process evaluations and one qualitative study. In addition, two of the RCTs and two of the process evaluations incorporated a qualitative component. Results from five RCTs were combined in a meta-analysis. There was a statistically significant increase in the numbers of participants doing moderate exercise with a combined relative risk of 1.20 (95% confidence intervals = 1.06 to 1.35). This means that 17 sedentary adults would need to be referred for one to become moderately active. This small effect may be at least partly due to poor rates of uptake and adherence to the exercise schemes. CONCLUSION: Exercise-referral schemes have a small effect on increasing physical activity in sedentary people. The key challenge, if future exercise-referral schemes are to be commissioned by the NHS, is to increase uptake and improve adherence by addressing the barriers described in these studies.     

Follow-up of cancer in primary care versus secondary care: systematic review

Background

Cancer follow-up has traditionally been undertaken in secondary care, but there are increasing calls to deliver it in primary care.

Aim

To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary versus secondary care follow-up of cancer patients, determine the effectiveness of the integration of primary care in routine hospital follow-up, and evaluate the impact of patient-initiated follow-up on primary care.

Design of study

Systematic review.

Setting

Primary and secondary care settings.

Method

A search was carried out of 19 electronic databases, online trial registries, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of included studies. The review included comparative studies or economic evaluations of primary versus secondary care follow-up, hospital follow-up with formal primary care involvement versus conventional hospital follow-up, and hospital follow-up versus patient-initiated or minimal follow-up if the study reported the impact on primary care.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference for patient wellbeing, recurrence rate, survival, recurrence-related serious clinical events, diagnostic delay, or patient satisfaction. GP-led breast cancer follow-up was cheaper than hospital follow-up. Intensified primary health care resulted in increased home-care nurse contact, and improved discharge summary led to increased GP contact. Evaluation of patient-initiated or minimal follow-up found no statistically significant impact on the number of GP consultations or cancer-related referrals.

Conclusion

Weak evidence suggests that breast cancer follow-up in primary care is effective. Interventions improving communication between primary and secondary care could lead to greater GP involvement. Discontinuation of formal follow-up may not increase GP workload. However, the quality of the data in general was poor, and no firm conclusions can be reached.     

Neurolinguistic programming: a systematic review of the effects on health outcomes

Background

Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) in health care has captured the interest of doctors, healthcare professionals, and managers.

Aim

To evaluate the effects of NLP on health-related outcomes.

Design and setting

Systematic review of experimental studies.

Method

The following data sources were searched: MEDLINE®, PsycINFO, ASSIA, AMED, CINAHL®, Web of Knowledge, CENTRAL, NLP specialist databases, reference lists, review articles, and NLP professional associations, training providers, and research groups.

Results

Searches revealed 1459 titles from which 10 experimental studies were included. Five studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and five were pre-post studies. Targeted health conditions were anxiety disorders, weight maintenance, morning sickness, substance misuse, and claustrophobia during MRI scanning. NLP interventions were mainly delivered across 4–20 sessions although three were single session. Eighteen outcomes were reported and the RCT sample sizes ranged from 22 to 106. Four RCTs reported no significant between group differences with the fifth finding in favour of the NLP arm (F = 8.114, P<0.001). Three RCTs and five pre-post studies reported within group improvements. Risk of bias across all studies was high or uncertain.

Conclusion

There is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes. This conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the allocation of NHS resources to NLP activities outside of research purposes.     

Effectiveness of nurse-delivered cardiovascular risk management in primary care: a randomised trial

Background

A substantial part of cardiovascular disease prevention is delivered in primary care. Special attention should be paid to the assessment of cardiovascular risk factors. According to the Dutch guideline for cardiovascular risk management, the heavy workload of cardiovascular risk management for GPs could be shared with advanced practice nurses.

Aim

To investigate the clinical effectiveness of practice nurses acting as substitutes for GPs in cardiovascular risk management after 1 year of follow-up.

Design of study

Prospective pragmatic randomised trial.

Setting

Primary care in the south of the Netherlands. Six centres (25 GPs, six nurses) participated.

Method

A total of 1626 potentially eligible patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease were randomised to a practice nurse group (n = 808) or a GP group (n = 818) in 2006. In total, 701 patients were included in the trial. The Dutch guideline for cardiovascular risk management was used as the protocol, with standardised techniques for risk assessment. Changes in the following risk factors after 1 year were measured: lipids, systolic blood pressure, and body mass index. In addition, patients in the GP group received a brief questionnaire.

Results

A larger decrease in the mean level of risk factors was observed in the practice nurse group compared with the GP group. After controlling for confounders, only the larger decrease in total cholesterol in the practice nurse group was statistically significant (P = 0.01, two-sided).

Conclusion

Advanced practice nurses are achieving results, equal to or better than GPs for the management of risk factors. The findings of this study support the involvement of practice nurses in cardiovascular risk management in Dutch primary care.     

The diagnostic value of symptoms for colorectal cancer in primary care: a systematic review

Background

Over 37 000 new colorectal cancers are diagnosed in the UK each year. Most present symptomatically to primary care.

Aim

To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic value of symptoms associated with colorectal cancer.

Design

Systematic review.

Method

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched to February 2010, for diagnostic studies of symptomatic adult patients in primary care. Studies of asymptomatic patients, screening, referred populations, or patients with colorectal cancer recurrences, or with fewer than 100 participants were excluded. The target condition was colorectal cancer. Data were extracted to estimate the diagnostic performance of each symptom or pair of symptoms. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis. The quality of studies was assessed with the QUADAS tool.

Results

Twenty-three studies were included. Positive predictive values (PPVs) for rectal bleeding from 13 papers ranged from 2.2% to 16%, with a pooled estimate of 8.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.0% to 11%) in those aged ≥50 years. Pooled PPV estimates for other symptoms were: abdominal pain (three studies) 3.3% (95% CI = 0.7% to 16%); and anaemia (four studies) 9.7% (95% CI = 3.5% to 27%). For rectal bleeding accompanied by weight loss or change in bowel habit, pooled positive likelihood ratios (PLRs) were 1.9 (95% CI = 1.3 to 2.8) and 1.8 (95% CI = 1.3 to 2.5) respectively, suggesting higher risk when both symptoms were present. Conversely, the PLR was one or less for abdominal pain, diarrhoea, or constipation accompanying rectal bleeding.

Conclusion

The findings suggest that investigation of rectal bleeding or anaemia in primary care patients is warranted, irrespective of whether other symptoms are present. The risks from other single symptoms are lower, though multiple symptoms also warrant investigation.     

Patient-reported areas for quality improvement in general practice: a cross-sectional survey

Background

GPs are often a patient’s first point of contact with the health system. The increasing demands imposed on GPs may have an impact on the quality of care delivered. Patients are well placed to make judgements about aspects of care that need to be improved.

Aim

To determine whether general practice patients perceive that the care they receive is ‘patient-centred’ across eight domains of care, and to determine the association between sociodemographic, GP and practice characteristics, detection of preventive health risks, and receipt of patient-centred care.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional survey of patients attending Australian general practice clinics.

Method

Patients completed a touchscreen survey in the waiting room to rate the care received from their GP across eight domains of patient-centred care. Patients also completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and self-reported health risk factors. GPs completed a checklist for each patient asking about the presence of health risk factors.

Results

In total 1486 patients and 51 GPs participated. Overall, 83% of patients perceived that the care they received was patient-centred across all eight domains. Patients most frequently perceived the ‘access to health care when needed’ domain as requiring improvement (8.3%). Not having private health insurance and attending a practice located in a disadvantaged area were significantly associated with perceived need for improvements in care (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Patients in general practice report that accessibility is an aspect of care that could be improved. Further investigation of how indicators of lower socioeconomic status interact with the provision of patient-centred care and health outcomes is required.     

Socioeconomic deprivation and accident and emergency attendances: cross-sectional analysis of general practices in England

Background

Demand for England’s accident and emergency (A&E) services is increasing and is particularly concentrated in areas of high deprivation. The extent to which primary care services, relative to population characteristics, can impact on A&E is not fully understood.

Aim

To conduct a detailed analysis to identify population and primary care characteristics associated with A&E attendance rates, particularly those that may be amenable to change by primary care services.

Design and setting

This study used a cross-sectional population-based design. The setting was general practices in England, in the year 2011–2012.

Method

Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to create a model to explain the variability in practice A&E attendance rates. Predictor variables included population demographics, practice characteristics, and measures of patient experiences of primary care.

Results

The strongest predictor of general practice A&E attendance rates was social deprivation: the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD-2010) (β = 0.3. B = 1.4 [95% CI =1.3 to 1.6]), followed by population morbidity (GPPS responders reporting a long-standing health condition) (β = 0.2, B = 231.5 [95% CI = 202.1 to 260.8]), and knowledge of how to contact an out-of-hours GP (GPPS question 36) (β = −0.2, B = −128.7 [95% CI =149.3 to −108.2]). Other significant predictors included the practice list size (β = −0.1, B = −0.002 [95% CI = −0.003 to −0.002]) and the proportion of patients aged 0–4 years (β = 0.1, B = 547.3 [95% CI = 418.6 to 676.0]). The final model explained 34.4% of the variation in A&E attendance rates, mostly due to factors that could not be modified by primary care services.

Conclusion

Demographic characteristics were the strongest predictors of A&E attendance rates. Primary care variables that may be amenable to change only made a small contribution to higher A&E attendance rates.     

Doctors as patients: a systematic review of doctors' health access and the barriers they experience

BACKGROUND: The need to improve doctors' access to health care by reducing the barriers they experience has been regularly described in the literature, yet the barriers experienced are not well defined, despite the volume of expert opinion in this area. AIM: To define what is known about doctors' access to health care from the data within the current literature. DESIGN OF STUDY: A systematic review of studies of doctors' health access. METHOD: A systematic search of MEDLINE and CINAHL, supplemented by citation searches and searches of the grey literature, identified both quantitative and qualitative studies. Two reviewers used specific criteria for inclusion of studies and quality assessment. The data were tabulated and analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-six articles met the inclusion criteria. The paucity of data and the overall poor quality of those data are highlighted. Despite this, many doctors appear to have a GP, but this does not ensure adequate health access. Systemic barriers to healthcare access (long hours and cultural issues) are more significant than individual barriers. CONCLUSION: Expert opinion in this field is supported by poor-quality data. The current knowledge reveals important similarities between doctors and the general population in their healthcare access, especially with mental health issues. Understanding this may help the medical profession to respond to these issues of 'doctors' health' more effectively.