BackgroundThe knowledge and use of qualitative description as a qualitative research approach in health services research is limited.The aim of this article is to discuss the potential benefits of a qualitative descriptive approach, to identify its strengths and weaknesses and to provide examples of use.DiscussionQualitative description is a useful qualitative method in much medical research if you keep the limitations of the approach in mind. It is especially relevant in mixed method research, in questionnaire development and in research projects aiming to gain firsthand knowledge of patients', relatives' or professionals' experiences with a particular topic. Another great advantage of the method is that it is suitable if time or resources are limited.SummaryAs a consequence of the growth in qualitative research in the health sciences, researchers sometimes feel obliged to designate their work as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography or a narrative study when in fact it is not. Qualitative description might be a useful alternative approach to consider.

General practice is the corner stone of Danish primary health care. General practitioners (GPs) are similar to family physicians in the United States. On average, all Danes have 6.9 contacts per year with their GP (in-person, telephone, or E-mail consultation). General practice is characterized by 5 key components: (1) a list system, with an average of close to 1600 persons on the list of a typical GP; (2) the GP as gatekeeper and first-line provider in the sense that a referral from a GP is required for most officebased specialists and always for in-and outpatient hospital treatment; (3) an after-hours system staffed by GPs on a rota basis; (4) a mixed capitation and fee-for-service system; and (5) GPs are self-employed, working on contract for the public funder based on a national agreement that details not only services and reimbursement but also opening hours and required postgraduate education. The contract is (re)negotiated every 2 years. General practice is embedded in a universal tax-funded health care system in which GP and hospital services are free at the point of use. The current system has evolved over the past century and has shown an ability to adapt flexibly to new challenges. Practice units are fairly small: close to 2 GPs per unit plus nurses and secretaries. The units are fully computerized, that is, with computer-based patient records and submission of prescriptions digitally to pharmacies etc. Over the past few years a decrease in solo practices has been seen and is expected to accelerate, in part because of the GP age structure, with many GPs retiring and new GPs not wanting to practice alone. This latter workforce trend is pointing toward a new model with employed GPs, particularly in rural areas. (J Am Board Fam Med 2012;25:S34 -38.)

BackgroundDelay in diagnosis of cancer may worsen prognosis. The aim of this study is to explore patient-, general practitioner (GP)- and system-related delay in the interval from first cancer symptom to diagnosis and treatment, and to analyse the extent to which delays differ by cancer type.MethodsPopulation-based cohort study conducted in 2004-05 in the County of Aarhus, Denmark (640,000 inhabitants). Data were collected from administrative registries and questionnaires completed by GPs on 2,212 cancer patients newly diagnosed during a 1-year period. Median delay (in days) with interquartile interval (IQI) was the main outcome measure.ResultsMedian total delay was 98 days (IQI 57-168). Most of the total delay stemmed from patient (median 21 days (7-56)) and system delay (median 55 days (32-93)). Median GP delay was 0 (0-2) days. Total delay was shortest among patients with ovarian (median 60 days (45-112)) and breast cancer (median 65 days (39-106)) and longest among patients with prostate (median 130 days (89-254)) and bladder cancer (median 134 days (93-181)).ConclusionSystem delay accounted for a substantial part of the total delay experienced by cancer patients. This points to a need for shortening clinical pathways if possible. A long patient delay calls for research into patient awareness of cancer. For all delay components, special focus should be given to the 4th quartile of patients with the longest time intervals and we need research into the quality of the diagnostic work-up process. We found large variations in delay for different types of cancer. Improvements should therefore target both the population at large and the specific needs associated with individual cancer types and their symptoms.

BackgroundDelay in cancer diagnosis may be important for cancer prognosis. Large individual variations in the duration of delay have been observed. This study examines whether patients' socioeconomic characteristics are predictors of long patient-, doctor- and system-related delay in cancer diagnosis.MethodsDanish population-based cohort study. From September 2004 to September 2005, newly diagnosed cancer patients were enrolled from administrative registries. A total of 467 general practitioners in the County of Aarhus, Denmark, completed questionnaires on 2,212 cancer patients' diagnostic pathways. A total of 1,252 cancer patients filled in questionnaires on their socioeconomic characteristics (e.g. marital status, education, occupation, household income and fortune). Delay was categorised as short or long based on quartiles. Predictors of long delay were assessed in a logistic regression model using odds ratios (ORs) as a proxy of relative risks.ResultsIn regard to patient delay, retired female patients experienced shorter delays (OR 0.35, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 0.13 to 0.98) than employed female patients, while female smokers experienced longer delays (OR 2.42, 95%CI 1.21 to 4.85) than female non-smokers.In regard to doctor delay, female patients with a large household fortune experienced shorter delays (OR 0.07, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.45) than economically less privileged female patients. Well-educated men experienced shorter delays (OR 0.40, 95%CI 0.16 to 1.00) than men with short education. Male patients experienced longer doctor delays (OR 2.11, 95%CI 1.11 to 4.02) than women when gender-specific cancers were excluded.In regard to system delay, female patients with a large household fortune experienced shorter delays (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.99) than economically less privileged women, while female patients with a high alcohol intake experienced longer delays (OR 2.82, 95%CI 1.18 to 6.72) than women with an average intake.ConclusionWe found socioeconomic predictors of delay that allow us to hypothesize social inequalities in the distribution of delay, but, in general, only a few socioeconomic variables predicted delay in cancer diagnosis. Future research should examine a broader array of patients' personal characteristics.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used, and concerns about overuse have been raised. Therefore, side effects are important to be aware of and several suggested side effects of long-term use have been studied. In this MiniReview, we sum up the evidence of side effects related to long-term PPI treatment. Suspected side effects are mainly related to increased susceptibility to infections, secondary hypergastrinaemia, impeded absorption of micronutrients or idiosyncratic reactions. Most of the potential side effects have only been evaluated in observational studies demonstrating conflicting and weak associations with a substantial risk of confounding. However, a high probability of causality seems to be established for the side effects increased risk of gastrointestinal infections and rebound acid hypersecretion following discontinuation of treatment due to secondary hypergastrinaemia. The risk of side effects should not be a reason to withhold PPIs from patients with a true indication, and worry about poorly proven side effects should not lead to unnecessary discontinuation. The most important safety issue regarding PPI therapy is to critically evaluate the indication when initiating treatment and reconsidering the indication in long-term-treated patients.