Background Primary care physicians have been present on the frontline during the ongoing pandemic, adding new tasks to already high workloads. Our aim was to evaluate burnout in primary care physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as associated contributing factors. Methods Cross-sectional study with an online questionnaire disseminated through social media, applying the snowball technique. The target population was primary care physicians working in Portugal during the first outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to sociodemographic data, the questionnaire collected responses to the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), the Resilience Scale and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS-21). Data were collected from May 9 to June 8, 2020, a period comprising the declaration of a national calamity and then state of emergency, and the subsequent ease of lockdown measures. Levels of burnout in 3 different dimensions (personal, work, and patient-related), resilience, stress, depression, and anxiety were assessed. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with burnout levels. Results Among the 214 physician respondents, burnout levels were high in the 3 dimensions. A strong association was found between gender, years of professional experience, depression and anxiety, and burnout levels. Conclusions Physician burnout in primary care is high and has increased during the pandemic. More studies are needed in the long term to provide a comprehensive assessment of COVID-19’simpact on burnout levels and how to best approach and mitigate it during such unprecedented times.

BackgroundProstate cancer is a leading cause of cancer among men. Because screening for prostate cancer is a controversial issue, many experts in the field have defended the use of shared decision making using validated decision aids, which can be presented in different formats (eg, written, multimedia, Web). Recent studies have concluded that decision aids improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict.ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of using Web-based decision aids to support men’s prostate cancer screening decisions in comparison with usual care and other formats of decision aids.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to November 2016. This search identified randomized controlled trials, which assessed Web-based decision aids for men making a prostate cancer screening decision and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Using a random-effects model, meta-analyses were conducted pooling results using mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD), and relative risks (RR).ResultsOf 2406 unique citations, 7 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and participant/personnel blinding were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on seven items, two studies had high risk of bias for one item. Compared to usual care, Web-based decision aids increased knowledge (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.18-0.75), reduced decisional conflict (MD –7.07%; 95% CI –9.44 to –4.71), and reduced the practitioner control role in the decision-making process (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.81). Web-based decision aids compared to printed decision aids yielded no differences in knowledge, decisional conflict, and participation in decision or screening behaviors. Compared to video decision aids, Web-based decision aids showed lower average knowledge scores (SMD –0.50; 95% CI –0.88 to –0.12) and a slight decrease in prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25).ConclusionsAccording to this analysis, Web-based decision aids performed similarly to alternative formats (ie, printed, video) for the assessed decision-quality outcomes. The low cost, readiness, availability, and anonymity of the Web can be an advantage for increasing access to decision aids that support prostate cancer screening decisions among men.

EARLY CHILDHOOD CARIES: AN UPDATEBackground: Childhood caries is one of the most common chronic childhood diseases. Aim: To identify risk factors for early childhood caries, highlighting their early clinical presentation and the inherent complications. Data source: Information was retrieved from fifteen articles published between 2006 and 2017, in English and Portuguese languages, in PubMed, Scopus and EBSCOhost, complemented by manual search in technical books and guidelines of international societies. Conclusions: Primary care is crucial for effective prevention of ECC. Family physicians are the better placed providers to do it. Updated education on oral health is mandatory.

ObjectiveTo assess patients’ preferred roles in healthcare-related decision-making in a representative sample of the Portuguese population.DesignPopulation-based nationwide cross-sectional study.Setting and participantsA sample of Portuguese people 20 years or older were interviewed face-to-face using a questionnaire with the Problem-Solving Decision-Making scale.OutcomesThe primary outcome was patients’ preferred role for each vignette of the problem-solving decision-making scale. Sociodemographic factors associated with the preferred roles were the secondary outcomes.Results599 participants (20–99 years, 53.8% women) were interviewed. Three vignettes of the Problem-Solving Decision-Making scale were compared: morbidity, mortality and quality of life. Most patients preferred a passive role for both the problem-solving and decision-making components of the scale, particularly for the mortality vignette (66.1% in the analysis of the three vignettes), although comparatively more opted to share decision in the decision-making component. For the quality of life vignette, a higher percentage of patients wanted a shared role (44.3%) than with the other two vignettes. In the problem-solving component, preferences were significantly associated with area of residence (p<0.001) and educational level (p=0.013), while in the decision-making, component preferences were associated with age (p=0.020), educational level (p=0.015) and profession (p<0.001).ConclusionsIn this representative sample of the Portuguese mainland population, most patients preferred a practitioner-controlling role for both the problem-solving and decision-making components. In a life-threatening situation, patients were more willing to let the doctor decide. In contrast, in a less serious situation, there is a greater willingness to participate in decision-making. We have found that shared decision-making is more acceptable to better-educated patients in the problem-solving component and to people who are younger, higher educated and employed, in the decision-making component.

Background: Screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer is considered a preference sensitive decision; meaning it does not only depend on what is best from a medical point of view, but also from a patient value standpoint. Decision aids are evidence-based tools which are shown to help people feel clearer about their values; therefore it has been advocated that decision aids should contain a specific values clarification method (VCM). VCMs may be either implicit or explicit, but the evidence concerning the best method is scarce. We aim to compare the perceived clarity of personal values in men considering PSA screening using decision aids with no VCM versus an implicit VCM versus an explicit VCM. Methods: Male factory employees from an industrial facility in the Northern region of Portugal aged 50 to 69 years old will be randomly assigned to one of three decision aid groups used to support prostate cancer screening decisions: (i) decision aid with information only (control), (ii) decision aid with information plus an implicit VCM, (iii) decision aid with information plus an explicit VCM. Men will be allowed release time from work to attend a session at their workplace. After a brief oral presentation, those willing to participate in the study will fill the baseline questionnaire, plus a 5 point-Likert scale question about intentions to undergo screening, and will then receive the intervention materials to complete. We estimated a total sample size of 276 participants; with 92 in each group. The primary outcome will be the perceived clarity of personal values assessed by the Portuguese validated translation of the three subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale. Secondary outcomes will be intention to be screened (before and after the intervention), the total score from the Decisional Conflict Scale and the self-report of having or not undergone screening at 6 months.

ObjectivesTo translate and validate the Problem-Solving Decision-Making scale instrument into the Portuguese language.DesignCross-sectional study.Setting: participantsThe Problem-Solving Decision-Making scale was translated from English to Portuguese and then back-translated to obtain a final version. The questionnaire was then applied face-to-face from January to March 2019 in a representative sample of the Portuguese population (n=301 people aged 20 years or more) to validate the Problem-Solving Decision-Making scale in a Portuguese population.OutcomesPrincipal component analysis and Cronbach’s alpha.ResultsPrincipal component analysis was used to evaluate the validity of the internal structure of the scale. The results identified two components: problem-solving and decision-making with an explained variance of 65.9%. For internal consistency, three different techniques were used and applied to the two components. All of the items have very good internal consistency (problem-solving Cronbach’s alpha=0.931 and decision-making Cronbach’s alpha=0.951).ConclusionsThe validation of the Portuguese scale agreed well with the existing literature. The scale can be divided into two components: the problem-solving component and the decision-making component. The translated scale demonstrated good internal consistency and can therefore be used in future studies.

N/A.

ObjectivesTo translate and culturally adapt an English language patient decision aid addressing prostate cancer screening, so it can be used by Portuguese men.DesignQualitative study. We followed the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control’s (ECDC) five-step, stakeholder-based approach to adapting health communication materials: (1) selection of materials and process coordinators, (2) early review, (3) translation and back translation, (4) comprehension testing with cognitive semi-structured interviews and (5) proofreading. Content analysis was performed using Ligre software.Setting and participantsCognitive interviews with 15 men to refine a decision aid after its translation. Eligible participants were Portuguese native-speaking men aged 55–69 years old recruited from the local community (urban and suburban) of Oporto district through advertisements in social media and senior universities between January and March 2019. A previous diagnosis of prostate cancer was the single exclusion criterion.ResultsFive main themes are presented: informational content, information comprehension, sociocultural appropriateness, feelings and main message and personal perspective concerning prostate cancer screening. Most men found the translated version of the decision aid to be clear, comprehensive and appropriate for its target population, although some suggested that medical terms could be a barrier. The data collected from men’s interviews afforded the researchers the opportunity to clarify concepts and expand existing content.ConclusionsA decision aid was successfully translated and adapted to the Portuguese cultural setting. Our ECDC based approach can be replicated by other workgroups to translate and culturally adapt decision aids.