Explore the vast range of titles available.

Pregnancy vulnerability contributes to poor perinatal mental health. Proper cross-sectoral collaboration may mitigate perinatal mental health problems. General practitioners (GPs) often face barriers when assessing pregnancy vulnerability, but little is known about GPs' perceived barriers to the cross-sectoral collaboration on vulnerable pregnant women. To explore GPs' barriers to cross-sectoral collaboration on pregnant women with vulnerabilities, and how barriers are associated with the organization of antenatal care (ANC) and general practice characteristics. A cross-sectional questionnaire study among Danish GPs (  = 3465). Descriptive statistics according to the Theoretical Domains Framework describes the barriers to collaboration. Analytical statistics with ordered logistic regression models demonstrate associations between selected barriers (the main outcome measures) and organization of ANC, GP and practice, characteristics. A total of 760 GPs (22%) participated. Perceived GP barriers to collaboration were lacking knowledge of ANC levels relevant to vulnerable pregnant women, insufficient information on vulnerability indicators from collaborating parties, heavy workload and insufficient remuneration for collaborative meetings. Being young were associated with insufficient GP knowledge of ANC levels. Old age was associated with less likelihood of experiencing heavy workload as a barrier. Barriers to collaboration on vulnerable pregnant women were associated with some GP-organizational characteristics including low experience in collaborating with partners in ANC, and GP characteristics, such as age. Reducing general practice workload, e.g. by reorganizing priority areas, releasing more time to vulnerable patients, and improving cross-sectoral information sharing on vulnerability might improve collaboration on vulnerable pregnant women.

The aim of this article is to show how Jürgen Habermas’ communicative action theory serves as a useful tool in analysing and interpreting empirical data on how Danish general practitioners experience defensive medicine in their everyday working life. Through six qualitative focus group interviews with a total of 28 general practitioners (14 men and 14 women), the general practitioners’ understandings of and experiences with defensive medicine were unfolded and discussed. Traditionally, defensive medicine is understood as physicians’ deviation from sound medical practice due to fears of liability claims or lawsuits. In this study, however, a broader understanding of defensive medicine emerged as unnecessary medical actions that are more substantiated by feelings of demands and pressures than meaningful clinical behaviour. As a first analytical step, the data are contextualized drawing on the medical sociological literature that has theorized recent changes within primary health care such as regulation, audit, standardization and consumerism. Using Habermas’ theorization to further interpret the general practitioners’ experiences, we argue that central areas of the general practitioners’ clinical everyday work life can be seen as having become subject to the habermasian social and political processes of ‘strategic action’ and ‘colonization’. It is furthermore shown that the general practitioners share an impulse to resist these colonizing processes, hereby pointing to a need for challenging the increasingly defensive medical culture that seems to pervade the organization of general practice today.

To assess (i) the pattern of antibiotic prescribing in Danish general practice, (ii) the use of diagnostic tests [point-of-care (POC) and tests analysed at the hospital laboratory (laboratory tests)], and (iii) the frequency of diagnostic testing in relation to antibiotic prescriptions. Retrospective cross-sectional register-based study. General practice in a geographical area of Denmark covering 455,956 inhabitants. We studied redeemed antibiotic prescriptions and performed diagnostic tests in general practice from 2013 to 2017 among inhabitants in nine selected municipalities. Frequency of antibiotic courses. Frequency and type of diagnostic testing performed in relation to types of antibiotics. A total of 783,252 antibiotic courses were redeemed from general practice with an overall decrease of 19% during 2013-2017. Diagnostic testing increased by 6% during this period. POC tests comprised the majority of performed diagnostic tests (83%) with C-reactive protein (CRP) as the most frequently used test. A 27% increase in the use of laboratory tests was observed. Tests were performed in relation to 43% of all antibiotic courses; most in relation to prescriptions for sulphonamide and trimethoprim (57%) and rarely when prescribing tetracyclines (10%). Conflicting with national guidelines, Danish GPs prescribed fluoroquinolones without performing any kind of diagnostic testing in 48% of the cases. This study provides an overview of the use of diagnostic tests in relation to antibiotics and creates basis for further research into the variability between types of antibiotics. The study indicates that there is room for improvement to use diagnostic tests as an aid to promote prudent antibiotic use. KEY POINTS Diagnostic tests (point-of-care or tests analysed at the hospital laboratory), can increase diagnostic certainty and lead to a reduction in antibiotic use in general practice. A decrease in antibiotic courses in general practice in Denmark was observed during 2013-2017, while the use of diagnostic tests increased. A diagnostic test was performed in relation to 43% of antibiotic courses. Only 52% of prescribed fluoroquinolones was related to a diagnostic test, conflicting with national guidelines.

Background A new national model for quality improvement in general practice based on the concept of quality clusters was introduced in Denmark in 2018. A quality cluster is a local group of general practitioners (GPs) meeting regularly to engage in quality improvement on self-selected topics. Aim To explore (1) GPs’ experiences of cluster meetings, and (2) associations between meeting experiences and self-reported benefits of participation. Design A national cross-sectional survey study in general practice. In 2020, a questionnaire regarding quality clusters was sent to all Danish GPs ( n  = 3432). GPs self-reported benefits from cluster participation comprised: overall benefit, changes in clinical organization and workflow, changes in drug prescriptions, improved knowledge of guidelines, and improved patient care. Results 1219 GPs (36%) participated. Results showed that cluster meetings were partly or fully perceived to be well organized (89%) and focused on relevant topics (89%), and that meetings took place in a friendly atmosphere (90%) where experiences were shared (93%). Two-thirds of the GPs found that the data was useful (67%), that their cluster showed a high level of commitment (66%), and that agreement was easily reached (61%). Meetings which were perceived as productive, with useful data, and with a high level of commitment were associated with statistically significantly higher odds for reporting benefits across all self-reported benefits investigated. Conclusion Overall, cluster meetings were perceived positively by the GPs and associated with benefits when experienced as productive, with useful data, and a high level of commitment. Key message In general, the GPs evaluated the cluster meetings positively 30% of the GPs reported high or very high overall benefit from cluster participation Two out of three of the GPs found that data was useful Productive meetings, useful data, and a high level of commitment was mostly associated with benefit It is important to continue with supporting the clusters in obtaining relevant data

ObjectiveTo investigate whether accreditation of general practice in Denmark promotes patient-reported quality of care and patient satisfaction.DesignA national cluster randomised case control study based on an online version of the Danish Patients Evaluate Practice questionnaire. Mixed effects ordered logit regression models taking account of clustering of patients in different municipalities were used in the analyses.SettingGeneral practice in Denmark.ParticipantsA representative sample of the Danish population.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was patient-reported quality of care, and patient satisfaction with general practice and patient satisfaction with the general practitioner served as secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn total, 3609 respondents answered the survey. We found no statistically significant relationships between patient-reported quality of care and practice accreditation (2016: OR=0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07 and 2017: OR=0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02) and between patient satisfaction with the general practitioner and accreditation (2016: OR=0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.13 and 2017: OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.04). However, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between patient satisfaction with the general practice and recent practice accreditation compared with satisfaction with practices not yet accredited (OR=0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97) but no significant relationship between patient satisfaction with the general practice and previous accreditation (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09).ConclusionAccreditation does not promote patient-reported quality of care or patient satisfaction. On the contrary, patient satisfaction with the general practice decreases when general practice is recently accredited.

Background The use of C-reactive protein (CRP) tests has been shown to safely reduce antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs). The aim of this study was to explore patient and clinical factors associated with the use of CRP testing when prescribing antibiotics recommended for RTIs. Methods A nation-wide retrospective cross-sectional register-based study based on first redeemed antibiotic prescriptions issued to adults in Danish general practice between July 2015 and June 2017. Only antibiotics recommended for treatment of RTIs were included in the analysis (penicillin-V, amoxicillin, co-amoxicillin or roxithromycin/clarithromycin). Logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios for patient-related and clinical factors on performing a CRP test in relation to antibiotic prescribing. Results A total of 984,149 patients redeemed at least one antibiotic prescription during the two-year period. About half of these prescriptions (49.6%) had an RTI stated as the indication, and a CRP test was performed in relation to 45.2% of these scripts. Lower odds of having a CRP test performed in relation to an antibiotic prescription was found for patients aged 75 years and above (OR 0.82, 95CI 0.79–0.86), with a Charlson Comorbidity Index of more than one (OR 0.93, 95CI 0.91–0.95), unemployed or on disability pension (OR 0.84, 95CI 0.83–0.85) and immigrants (OR 0.91, 95CI 0.88–0.95) or descendants of immigrants (OR 0.90, 95CI 0.84–0.96). Living with a partner (OR 1.08, 95CI 1.07–1.10), being followed in practice for a chronic condition (OR 1.22, 95CI 1.18–1.26) and having CRP tests performed in the previous year (OR 1.78, 95CI 1.73–1.84) were associated with higher odds of CRP testing in relation to antibiotic prescribing. Conclusions Differences were observed in the use of CRP tests among subgroups of patients indicating that both sociodemographic factors and comorbidity influence the decision to use a CRP test in relation to antibiotic prescriptions in general practice. Potentially, this means that the use of CRP tests could be optimised to increase diagnostic certainty and further promote rational prescribing of antibiotics. The rationale behind the observed differences could be further explored in future qualitative studies.

Background An increasing number of countries legalise the use of medical cannabis or allow it for a narrow range of medical conditions. Physicians, and often the patients’ general practitioner, play a major role in implementing this policy. Many of them, however, perceive a lack of evidence-based knowledge and are not confident with providing patients with medical cannabis. The objectives of this review are to synthesise findings about hospital physicians’ and GPs’ experiences, attitudes, and beliefs towards the use of medical cannabis with the purpose of identifying barriers and facilitators towards providing it to their patients. Methods Peer-reviewed articles addressing hospital physicians’ and GPs’ experiences, attitudes, and beliefs towards the use of medical cannabis were searched systematically in PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Results Twenty-one articles were included from five different countries in which the medical cannabis laws varied. The studied physicians experienced frequent inquiries about medical cannabis from their patients (49–95%), and between 10 and 95% of the physicians were willing to prescribe and/or provide it to the patients, depending on setting, specialty and experience among the physicians. This review found that physicians experienced in prescribing medical cannabis were more convinced of its benefits and less worried about adverse effects than non-experienced physicians. However, physicians specialized in addiction treatment and certain relevant indication areas seemed more sceptical compared to physicians in general. Nevertheless, physicians generally experienced a lack of knowledge of clinical effects including both beneficial and adverse effects. Conclusion This review indicates that GPs and hospital physicians from various specialties frequently experience patient demands for medical cannabis and to some degree show openness to using it, although there was a wide gap between studies in terms of willingness to provide. Hospital physicians and GPs’ experienced in prescribing are more convinced of effects and less worried of adverse effects. However, most physicians experience a lack of knowledge of beneficial effects, adverse effects and of how to advise patients, which may comprise barriers towards prescribing. More research, including larger studies with cohort designs and qualitative studies, is needed to further examine facilitators and barriers to physicians’ prescribing practices.

ObjectivesRecent years have witnessed a progressive increase in defensive medicine (DM) in several Western welfare countries. In Danish primary and secondary care, documentation on the extent of DM is lacking. Before investigating the extent of DM, we wanted to explore how the phenomenon is understood and experienced in the context of general practice in Denmark. The objective of the study was to describe the phenomenon of DM as understood and experienced by Danish general practitioners (GPs).DesignA qualitative methodology was employed and data were generated through six focus group interviews with three to eight GPs per group (n=28) recruited from the Region of Southern Denmark. Data were analysed using a thematic content analysis inspired by a hermeneutic-phenomenological focus on understanding and meaning.ResultsDM is understood as unnecessary and meaningless medical actions, carried out mainly because of external demands that run counter to the GP’s professionalism. Several sources of pressure to act defensively were identified by the GPs: the system’s pressure to meet external regulations, demands from consumerist patients and a culture among GPs and peers of infallibility and zero-risk tolerance.ConclusionsGPs understand DM as unnecessary and meaningless actions driven by external demands instead of a focus on the patient’s problem. GPs consider defensive actions to be carried out as a result of succumbing to various sources of pressure deriving from the system, the patients, the GPs themselves and peers.

Introduction Validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are crucial for assessing patients’ experiences in the healthcare system. Both clinically and theoretically, patient-centered consultations are essential in patient-care, and are often suggested as the optimal strategy in caring for patients with multimorbidity. Aim To either identify or develop and validate a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to assess patient-centredness in consultations for patients with multimorbidity in general practice. Methods We attempted to identify an existing PROM through a systematic literature review. If a suitable PROM was not identified, we planned to (1) construct a draft PROM based on items from existing PROMs, (2) conduct group and individual interviews among members of the target population to ensure comprehensibility, comprehensiveness and relevance, and (3) perform a psychometric validation in a broad sample of patients from primary care. Results We did not identify an eligible PROM in the literature review. The item extraction and face validity meetings resulted in a new PROM consisting of 47 items divided into five domains: biopsychosocial perspective; `patient-as-person’; sharing power and responsibility; therapeutic alliance; and coordinated care. The interviews resulted in a number of changes to the layout and phrasing as well as the deletion of items. The PROM used in the psychometric validation consisted of 28 items. Psychometric validation showed high internal consistency, overall high reliability, and moderate fit indices in the confirmatory factor analysis for all five domains. Few items demonstrated differential item functioning concerning variables such as age, sex, and education. Conclusions This study successfully developed and validated a PROM to measure patient-centredness in consultations for patients with multimorbidity. The five domains demonstrated high reliability and validity, making it a valuable tool for measuring patient-centredness of consultations in general practice. Trial registration Trial registration number (data for psychometric validation): https://clinicaltrials.gov : NCT05676541 Registration Date: 2022-12-16.

This article investigates whether the empathie abilities of street-level bureaucrats have an impact on their discretionary decision-making.The impact of empathie abilities on decision-making is considered an important research question, as our knowledge remains limited as to the importance of personal ability on decisions.The article further contributes to the field of street-level bureaucracy by conducting a discrete choice experiment, an approach highly suitable for examining discretionary decision-making.The article draws on nationally representative survey data from 268 employees in correctional facilities in Denmark, with a 67.5% response rate. The findings confirm that discretionary decision-making is affected by the empathie abilities of bureaucrats. However, the impact of empathy depends on the severity of inmates' infringement against the rules. In essence, the findings demonstrate that personal abilities may advantageously be incorporated into further studies as an important determinant of street-level behavior.