ObjectiveTo assess whether colon cancer follow-up can be organised by general practitioners (GPs) without a decline in the patient's quality of life (QoL) and increase in cost or time to cancer diagnoses, compared to hospital follow-up.DesignRandomised controlled trial.SettingNorthern Norway Health Authority Trust, 4 trusts, 11 hospitals and 88 local communities.ParticipantsPatients surgically treated for colon cancer, hospital surgeons and community GPs.Intervention24-month follow-up according to national guidelines at the community GP office. To ensure a high follow-up guideline adherence, a decision support tool for patients and GPs were used.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were QoL, measured by the global health scales of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C-30) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness and time to cancer diagnoses.Results110 patients were randomised to intervention (n=55) or control (n=55), and followed by 78 GPs (942 follow-up months) and 70 surgeons (942 follow-up months), respectively. Compared to baseline, there was a significant improvement in postoperative QoL (p=0.003), but no differences between groups were revealed (mean difference at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 and 24-month follow-up appointments): Global Health; Δ−2.23, p=0.20; EQ-5D index; Δ−0.10, p=0.48, EQ-5D VAS; Δ−1.1, p=0.44. There were no differences in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis (GP 35 days vs surgeon 45 days, p=0.46); 14 recurrences were detected (GP 6 vs surgeon 8) and 7 metastases surgeries performed (GP 3 vs surgeon 4). The follow-up programme initiated 1186 healthcare contacts (GP 678 vs surgeon 508), 1105 diagnostic tests (GP 592 vs surgeon 513) and 778 hospital travels (GP 250 vs surgeon 528). GP organised follow-up was associated with societal cost savings (£8233 vs £9889, p<0.001).ConclusionsGP-organised follow-up was associated with no decline in QoL, no increase in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis and cost savings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00572143.

BackgroundNorway provides universal health care coverage to all residents, but socio-economic inequalities in health are among the largest in Europe. Evidence on inequalities in health care utilisation is sparse, and the aim of this population based study was to investigate socio-economic inequalities in the utilisation of health care services in Tromsø, Norway.MethodsWe used questionnaire data from the cross-sectional Tromsø Study, conducted in 2007–8. All together 12,982 persons aged 30–87 years participated with the response rate of 65.7%. This is slightly more than one third of the total population (33.8%) in the mentioned age group in Tromsø municipality. By logistic regression analyses we studied associations between household income, education and self-rated occupational status and the utilisation of general practitioner, somatic and psychiatric specialist outpatient services. The outcome variables were probability and frequency of use during the previous 12 months. Analyses were stratified by gender and adjusted for age, marital status, and self-rated health.ResultsSelf-rated health was the dominant predictor of health care utilisation. Women’s probability of visiting a general practitioner did not vary by socio-economic status, but high income was associated with less frequent use (odds ratio [OR] for trend 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-0.98). In men, high income predicted lower probability and frequency of general practitioner utilisation (OR for trend 0.85, CI 0.76-0.94, and 0.86, 0.78-0.95, respectively). Women’s probability of visiting a somatic specialist increased with higher income (OR for trend 1.11, CI 1.01-1.21) and higher education (OR for trend 1.27, CI 1.16-1.39). We found the same trends for men, though significant only for education (OR for trend 1.14, CI 1.05-1.25). The likelihood of visiting psychiatric specialist services increased with higher education and decreased with higher income in women (OR for trend 1.57, CI 1.24-1.98, and 0.69, 0.56-0.86, respectively), but did not vary significantly by socio-economic variables in men. Higher income predicted more frequent use of psychiatric specialist services in men (OR for trend 2.02, CI 1.12-3.63).ConclusionsThis study revealed important inequalities in the utilisation of health care services in Norway, inequalities which may contribute to sustaining inequalities in health outcomes.

BackgroundReferral rates of general practitioners (GPs) are an important determinant of secondary care utilization. The variation in these rates across GPs is considerable, and cannot be explained by patient morbidity alone. The main objective of this study was to assess the GPs’ referral rate to secondary care in Norway, any associations between the referral decision and patient, GP, health care characteristics and who initiated the referring issue in the consultation.MethodsThe probabilities of referral to secondary care and/or radiological examination were examined in 100 consecutive consultations of 44 randomly chosen Norwegian GPs. The GPs recorded whether the issue of referral was introduced, who introduced it and if the patient was referred. Multilevel and naive multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to explore associations between the probability of referral and patient, GP and health care characteristics.ResultsOf the 4350 consultations included, 13.7% (GP range 4.0%-28.0%) of patients were referred to secondary somatic and psychiatric care. Female GPs referred significantly more frequently than male GPs (16.0% versus 12.6%, adjusted odds ratio, AOR, 1.25), specialists in family medicine less frequently than their counterparts (12.5% versus 14.9%, AOR 0.76) and salaried GPs more frequently than private practitioners (16.2% versus 12.1%, AOR 1.36).In 4.2% (GP range 0%-12.9%) of the consultations, patients were referred to radiological examination. Specialists in family medicine, salaried GPs and GPs with a Norwegian medical degree referred significantly more frequently to radiological examination than their counterparts (AOR 1.93, 2.00 and 1.73, respectively).The issue of referral was introduced in 23% of the consultations, and in 70.6% of these cases by the GP. The high referrers introduced the referral issue significantly more frequently and also referred a significantly larger proportion when the issue was introduced.ConclusionsThe main finding of the present study was a high overall referral rate, and a striking range among the GPs. Male GPs and specialists in family medicine referred significantly less frequently to secondary care, but the latter referred more frequently to radiological examination. Our findings indicate that intervention on high referrers is a potential area for quality improvement, and there is a need to explore the referral decision process itself.

BackgroundThere is a large variation in referral rates to secondary care among GPs, which is partly unexplained.AimTo explore associations between reasons for referral to secondary care and patient, GP, and healthcare characteristics.Design and settingA cross-sectional study in Northern Norway.MethodData were derived from 44 (42%) of 104 randomly selected GPs between 2008 and 2010. GPs scored the relevance of nine predefined reasons for 595 referrals from 4350 consecutive consultations on a four-level categorical scale. Associations were examined by multivariable ordered and multivariable multilevel logistic regression analyses.ResultsMedical necessity was assessed as a relevant reason in 93% of the referrals, 43.7% by patient preference, 27.5% to avoid overlooking anything, and 14.6% to reassure the patient. The higher the referral rates, the more frequently the GPs referred to avoid overlooking anything. Female GPs referred to reassure the patient and due to perceived deficient medical knowledge significantly more often than male GPs. However, perceived easy accessibility of specialists was significantly less frequently given as a reason for referral by female GPs compared with male GPs. When the GPs scored the referrals to be of lesser medical necessity, male GPs referred significantly more frequently than female GPs to reassure the patient due to patient preference and perceived deficient medical knowledge.ConclusionThere are striking differences in reasons for referral between Norwegian male and female GPs and between GPs with high and low referral rates, which reflects difficulties in handling professional uncertainty. Referring to reassure the patients, especially when referrals are less medically necessary, may reflect consideration and acquiescence towards the patients.

Introduction Mentoring has become a prevalent educational strategy in medical education, with various aims. Published reviews of mentoring report very little on group-based mentorship programs. The aim of this systematic review was to identify group-based mentorship programs for undergraduate medical students and describe their aims, structures, contents and program evaluations. Based on the findings of this review, the authors provide recommendations for the organization and assessment of such programs. Methods A systematic review was conducted, according to PRISMA guidelines, and using the databases Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC up to July 2019. Eight hundred abstracts were retrieved and 20 studies included. Quality assessment of the quantitative studies was done using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results The 20 included studies describe 17 different group mentorship programs for undergraduate medical students in seven countries. The programs were differently structured and used a variety of methods to achieve aims related to professional development and evaluation approaches. Most of the studies used a single-group cross-sectional design conducted at a single institution. Despite the modest quality, the evaluation data are remarkably supportive of mentoring medical students in groups. Discussion Group mentoring holds great potential for undergraduate medical education. However, the scientific literature on this genre is sparse. The findings indicate that group mentorship programs benefit from being longitudinal and mandatory. Ideally, they should provide opportunities throughout undergraduate medical education for regular meetings where discussions and personal reflection occur in a supportive environment.