The first contact for patients with obesity for any medical treatment or other issues is generally with General Practitioners (GPs). Therefore, given the complexity of the disease, continuing GPs’ education on obesity management is essential. This article aims to provide obesity management guidelines specifically tailored to GPs, favouring a practical patient-centred approach. The focus is on GP communication and motivational interviewing as well as on therapeutic patient education. The new guidelines highlight the importance of avoiding stigmatization, something frequently seen in different health care settings. In addition, managing the psychological aspects of the disease, such as improving self-esteem, body image and quality of life must not be neglected. Finally, the report considers that achieving maximum weight loss in the shortest possible time is not the key to successful treatment. It suggests that 5–10% weight loss is sufficient to obtain substantial health benefits from decreasing comorbidities. Reducing waist circumference should be considered even more important than weight loss per se, as it is linked to a decrease in visceral fat and associated cardiometabolic risks. Finally, preventing weight regain is the cornerstone of lifelong treatment, for any weight loss techniques used (behavioural or pharmaceutical treatments or bariatric surgery).
ObjectiveTo characterise in details a random sample of multimorbid patients in Switzerland and to evaluate the clustering of chronic conditions in that sample.Methods100 general practitioners (GPs) each enrolled 10 randomly selected multimorbid patients aged ≥18 years old and suffering from at least three chronic conditions. The prevalence of 75 separate chronic conditions from the International Classification of Primary Care-2 (ICPC-2) was evaluated in these patients. Clusters of chronic conditions were studied in parallel.ResultsThe final database included 888 patients. Mean (SD) patient age was 73.0 (12.0) years old. They suffered from 5.5 (2.2) chronic conditions and were prescribed 7.7 (3.5) drugs; 25.7% suffered from depression. Psychological conditions were more prevalent among younger individuals (≤66 years old). Cluster analysis of chronic conditions with a prevalence ≥5% in the sample revealed four main groups of conditions: (1) cardiovascular risk factors and conditions, (2) general age-related and metabolic conditions, (3) tobacco and alcohol dependencies, and (4) pain, musculoskeletal and psychological conditions.ConclusionGiven the emerging epidemic of multimorbidity in industrialised countries, accurately depicting the multiple expressions of multimorbidity in family practices’ patients is a high priority. Indeed, even in a setting where patients have direct access to medical specialists, GPs nevertheless retain a key role as coordinators and often as the sole medical reference for multimorbid patients.
IntroductionWith the ageing of the population and the general improvement of care, an increasing number of people are living with multiple chronic health conditions or ‘multimorbidity’. Multimorbidity often implies multiple medical treatments. As a consequence, the risk of adverse events and the time spent by patients for their treatments increase exponentially. In many cases, treatment guidelines traditionally defined for single conditions are not easily applicable. Primary care for individuals with multimorbidity requires complex patient-centred care and good communication between the patient and the general practitioner (GP). This often includes prioritising among the different chronic conditions.Methods and analysisThe main objectives of this study are to describe the burden related to multimorbidity (disease-related burden and burden of treatment) in primary care and to identify the factors influencing it. Other objectives include evaluating patients’ perception of treatment burden and quality of life, assessing factors influencing that perception, and investigating prioritisation in the management of multimorbidity from the perspectives of GPs and patients. For this cross-sectional study, patient enrolment will take place in GP's private practices across Switzerland. A convenient sample of 100 GPs will participate; overall, 1000 patients with at least three chronic health conditions will be enrolled. Data will be collected as paper-based questionnaires for GPs and delayed telephone interview questionnaires for patients. GPs will provide demographic and practice-related data. In addition, each GP will complete a paper-based questionnaire for each patient that they enrol. Each patient will complete a telephone interview questionnaire.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the research ethics committee of Canton Vaud, Switzerland (Protocol 315/14). The results of the study will be reported in international peer-reviewed journals.
Our results showed that the middle ears of Thiel-embalmed human whole head specimens can be used to study human middle ear mechanics; however, significant differences in some frequencies, particularly at the round window, have to be considered.
BackgroundFaced with patients suffering from more than one chronic condition, or multimorbidity, general practitioners (GPs) must establish diagnostic and treatment priorities. Patients also set their own priorities to handle the everyday burdens associated with their multimorbidity and these may be different from the priorities established by their GP. A shared patient–GP agenda, driven by knowledge of each other’s priorities, would seem central to managing patients with multimorbidity. We evaluated GPs’ ability to identify the health condition most important to their patients.MethodsData on 888 patients were collected as part of a cross-sectional Swiss study on multimorbidity in family medicine. For the main analyses on patients-GP agreement, data from 572 of these patients could be included. GPs were asked to identify the two conditions which their patient considered most important, and we tested whether either of them agreed with the condition mentioned as most important by the patient. In the main analysis, we studied the agreement rate between GPs and patients by grouping items medically-related into 46 groups of conditions. Socio-demographic and clinical variables were fitted into univariate and multivariate models.ResultsIn 54.9% of cases, GPs were able to identify the health condition most important to the patient. In the multivariate model, the only variable significantly associated with patient–GP agreement was the number of chronic conditions: the higher the number of conditions, the less likely the agreement.ConclusionGPs were able to correctly identify the health condition most important to their patients in half of the cases. It therefore seems important that GPs learn how to better adapt treatment targets and priorities by taking patients’ perspectives into account.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0757-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background Direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTCGT) offers individuals access to information on their probable risks of suffering from a wide range of chronic diseases. General practitioners (GPs) will probably play a major role in supporting its use, but patients’ perception of DTCGT remain unclear. This study aimed to describe those attitudes and expectations and how they might affect GPs’ daily practices. Methods In 2018–2019, a study related to the use of DTCGT for preventive care in general medicine was conducted among patients in Switzerland’s French-speaking areas. Data were collected in the waiting room using a self-administrated questionnaire about patients’ interest in DTCGT and what their attitudes might be if testing revealed an elevated risk of diabetes, colorectal cancer, or Alzheimer’s disease. Results About 40% of the 929 participating (participation rate about 80%) patients had heard about DTCGT and, once the test had been explained, 43% reported that they would be interested in being tested. If that testing suggested an elevated risk of disease, the majority of patients reported that they would change their lifestyle (65%–81%, depending on the disease), request more examinations (63%–77%), and expect changes in their GP’s follow-up (48%–59%). Personal characteristics such as sex, age, urbanity, marital status, and perceived health were factors predictive of patients’ attitudes. Conclusion Findings indicated that the generalization of DTCGT might affect GPs’ daily practices in terms of workload and knowledge about this approach. However, this result must be qualified by the fact that it is based on hypothetical situations.
The discussion between general practitioners (GPs) and healthcare delivery organizations necessitates a common language. The presentation of the 4 types of GP's activities, opens dialogue but can lead to possible misunderstandings between the micro-and macro-level of the healthcare system. This commentary takes 4 examples: costs reduction by P4, priority of beneficence or nonmaleficence, role of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and use of a constructivist model.
The concept of quaternary prevention, resulting from a reflection on the doctor-patient relationship, is presented as a renewal of the age-old ethical requirement: first, a doctor must do no harm; second, the doctor must control himself/herself. The origin of the concept, its endorsement by the World Organization of Family Doctors (WONCA) and the European Union of General Practitioners (UEMO), its dissemination, and the debates to which it has given rise, are presented by a panel of authors from 10 countries. This collective text deals more specifically with: the bioethics of prevention, the importance of teaching Quaternary prevention and factual medicine, the social and political implications of the concept of quaternary prevention, and its anthropological dimensions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.