BackgroundDespite rapid growth and development of medical technology, personal relationship between the patient and physician remains the basis of high quality treatment. The aim of our study was to develop, implement and evaluate patient therapeutic letters written by students as a tool in teaching family medicine.MethodsThe study included all 6th year students attending their rounds in family medicine, structured into two 10-day cycles, one in urban offices and one in offices on the Adriatic islands (rural). After receiving detailed instructions, students wrote letters to two patients after a consultation in the office. The letters were audited by patients and 3 family medicine experts who used a grading instrument (scale 0 – poor, 1 – medium, 2 – good) for 1) adequacy and clarity of description of patients’ disease/state, 2) knowledge, 3) adequacy of recommendations, 4) courtesy and respect and 5) language and style. Patients and experts were also asked to underline phrases they thought would be difficult to understand; the underlined text was subjected to content analysis.ResultsBoth the patients and the experts gave high scores for the value and quality of the letters in terms of the description of the problem, adequacy of recommendations given, and courtesy and respect (mean (±standard deviation) 5.65 ± 0.79 for patients vs. 4.87 ± 0.79 for experts out of maximum score of 6). Family medicine experts were stricter than patients in their evaluation of the content of the letters (adequacy and clarity of disease description (P < 0.001) and adequacy of recommendations (P < 0.001). Both the patients and the experts seemed to like longer letters as the length of the letter showed significant positive correlation with the quality summary score (correlation r = 0.492 vs. r = 0.338, respectively, P < 0.010). Overlapping of the text underlined as difficult to understand by patients and experts was found in 10 (11.6%) out of 86 letters. The highest overlap (20 terms) was found for the category “Technical terms unclear to a lay reader”.ConclusionsWriting of a letter to their first patients may be a useful tool for students to personally experience the practice of medicine and establish better partnership with patients in health care.

IntroductionAs scientific, media and individual opinions on the need for seasonal influenza vaccination differ, we explored patients’ decisional conflict and perceived physician and social support when making a vaccination choice.Material and methodsWe conducted a survey of patients with previous vaccination experience in a single family medicine office in Split, Croatia. The questionnaire included the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), perceived social support, and attitudes and knowledge concerning vaccination.ResultsOut of 203 (86%) adult patients with previous vaccination experience, 182 (40.4%) opted to vaccinate in the current season, 98 (48.3%) refused, and 22 (11.3%) were undecided. The median decisional conflict score was highest among those undecided (43.8 out of the maximum 100, interquartile range (IQR) 33.2–52.3), lowest among those opting to vaccinate (17.2, IQR 9.4–26.6), and intermediate among those who refused vaccination (25.0, IQR 17.2–39.1) (p < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test and post-hoc Mann-Whitney U tests). The most common self-reported reasons for vaccination were previous vaccination experience (n = 85, 42%) and media information (n = 62, 30%). Those who refused vaccination felt less satisfied with the support they received from their family physician than those who decided to vaccinate (median 6.5 (IQR 0–9) vs. 9 (IQR 5–10) on a scale from 0 to 10), respectively; p = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).ConclusionsHigher decisional conflict of patients who refuse influenza vaccination and those undecided, alongside their perceived low support of the family physician in making that choice, emphasize the importance family doctors play in advising and helping patients make informed decisions about seasonal influenza vaccination.

No abstract

Family medicine fosters holistic approach to patient-centered practice. Current medical curriculum in Croatia does not have well-structured courses or tools to prepare medicals students for successful communication with the patient and for building lasting and beneficial doctor-patient relationship. We explored the value of students' practice in writing letters to patients about their illness as a way of building personal and compassionate relationship with patients. Sixth year students at the School of Medicine in Split wrote letters to the patients from consultations under the supervision of the supervisor in a family medicine practice. Structured teaching of communication with the patient brings family medicine back to what has actually always been its main part -communication and doctor-patient relationship. Our future aim is to develop students' letters to patients as a new tool in the family medicine course examination. Moreover, we will investigate how they can be used in everyday practice of family medicine.

IntroductionDespite increased visibility of clinical trials through international trial registries, patients often remain uninformed of their existence, especially if they do not have access to adequate information about clinical research, including the language of the information. The aim of this study was to describe the context for transparency of clinical trials in Croatia in relation to countries in Central and Eastern Europe, and to assess how informed Croatian patients are about clinical trials and their accessibility.Materials and methodsWe assessed the transparency of clinical trials from the data available in the public domain. We also conducted an anonymous survey on a convenience sample of 257 patients visiting two family medicine offices or an oncology department in south Croatia, and members of national patients’ associations.ResultsDespite legal provisions for transparency of clinical trials in Croatia, they are still not sufficiently visible in the public domain. Among countries from Central and Eastern Europe, Croatia has the fewest number of registered trials in the EU Clinical Trials Registry. 66% of the patients in the survey were aware of the existence of clinical trials but only 15% were informed about possibilities of participating in a trial. Although 58% of the respondents were willing to try new treatments, only 6% actually participated in a clinical trial. Only 2% of the respondents were aware of publicly available trial registries.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that there is low transparency of clinical trials in Croatia, and that Croatian patients are not fully aware of clinical trials and the possibilities of participating in them, despite reported availability of Internet resources and good communication with their physicians. There is a need for active policy measures to increase the awareness of and access to clinical trials to patients in Croatia, particularly in their own language.