Paul Van Royen

Under-prescription of antidepressants (ADs) among people meeting the criteria for major depressive episodes and excessive prescription in less symptomatic patients have been reported. The reasons influencing general practitioners’ (GPs) prescription of ADs remain little explored. This study aimed at assessing the influence of GP and patient characteristics on AD prescription. This cross-sectional study was based on a sample of 816 GPs working within the main health care insurance system in the Seine-Maritime district of France during 2010. Only GPs meeting the criteria for full-time GP practice were included. The ratio of AD prescription to overall prescription volume, a relative measure of AD prescription level, was calculated for each GP, using the defined daily dose (DDD) concept. Associations of this AD prescription ratio with GPs’ age, gender, practice location, number of years of practice, number of days of sickness certificates prescribed, number of home visits and consultations, number and mean age of registered patients, mean patient income, and number of patients with a chronic condition were assessed using univariate and multivariate analysis. The high prescribers were middle-aged (40–59) urban GPs, with a moderate number of consultations and fewer low-income and chronic patients. GPs’ workload (e.g., volume of prescribed drug reimbursement and number of consultations) had no influence on the AD prescription ratio. GPs with more patients with risk factors for depression prescribed fewer ADs, however, which could suggest the medications were under-prescribed among the at-risk population. Our study described a profile of the typical higher AD prescriber that did not include heavy workload. In future work, a more detailed assessment of all biopsychosocial components of the consultation and other influences on GP behavior such as prior training would be useful to explain AD prescription in GP’s practice.

Diagnostic reasoning is considered to be based on the interaction between analytical and non-analytical cognitive processes. Gut feelings, a specific form of non-analytical reasoning, play a substantial role in diagnostic reasoning by general practitioners (GPs) and may activate analytical reasoning. In GP traineeships in the Netherlands, trainees mostly see patients alone but regularly consult with their supervisors to discuss patients and problems, receive feedback, and improve their competencies. In the present study, we examined the discussions of supervisors and their trainees about diagnostic reasoning in these so-called tutorial dialogues and how gut feelings feature in these discussions. 17 tutorial dialogues focussing on diagnostic reasoning were video-recorded and transcribed and the protocols were analysed using a detailed bottom-up and iterative content analysis and coding procedure. The dialogues were segmented into quotes. Each quote received a content code and a participant code. The number of words per code was used as a unit of analysis to quantitatively compare the contributions to the dialogues made by supervisors and trainees, and the attention given to different topics. The dialogues were usually analytical reflections on a trainee’s diagnostic reasoning. A hypothetico-deductive strategy was often used, by listing differential diagnoses and discussing what information guided the reasoning process and might confirm or exclude provisional hypotheses. Gut feelings were discussed in seven dialogues. They were used as a tool in diagnostic reasoning, inducing analytical reflection, sometimes on the entire diagnostic reasoning process. The emphasis in these tutorial dialogues was on analytical components of diagnostic reasoning. Discussing gut feelings in tutorial dialogues seems to be a good educational method to familiarize trainees with non-analytical reasoning. Supervisors need specialised knowledge about these aspects of diagnostic reasoning and how to deal with them in medical education.

The theme ‘patient-centred interprofessional collaboration’ of the EGPRN conference in October 2012, captures in just three words important challenges for European primary care and its research agenda. Challenges for future research are formulated, in three domains: clinical, educational and health services research. Transferability of research, based upon advanced computational infrastructure, will facilitate a rapid learning health care system. In educational research, this includes the use of observational and reflexivity methods. Outcomes should be defined in terms of improvement of functional status and social participation rather than in terms of disease-specific outcomes. Partnership with all stakeholders, patients, GPs and their health care colleagues and students, can help in reducing avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence.

The frequency of antidepressant (ADs) prescription is high, with general practitioners (GPs) responsible for about 80% of the prescriptions. Some studies considered prescriptions meet DSM criteria, while others stress inadequate use. The importance of biological and psychosocial determinants of GP prescription behaviour remains little explored. We aimed to describe the importance of these biological and psychosocial determinants and their weight in the daily practice of GPs’.

In recent years, red yeast rice (RYR) supplements have been marketed aggressively as a natural way to lower cholesterol; however, the large majority of commercially available products have not been studied according to current research standards. In a double blind placebo controlled randomized trial, 52 physicians and their spouses with a total cholesterol level of > 200 mg/dL were randomly allocated to receive a RYR extract or placebo for 8 weeks. As a primary outcome measure, we compared the before-after difference in lipid levels between both groups. As secondary outcome measures we looked at side-effects, CK elevation and a change in cardiovascular risk. LDL (low density lipoprotein) cholesterol was lowered with 36 mg/dL (22%) and total cholesterol with 37 mg/dL (15%) in the intervention group. This result was statistically significant as compared to the control group, in which no reduction in total cholesterol and LDL was observed (p < 0.001). There was no marked difference in CK (creatine kinase)-elevation or reported side-effects between study groups. In 5/31 participants in the intervention group, the lipid lowering effect resulted in lower cardiovascular risk as measured with SCORE (Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation). The RYR formulation under study was effective in lowering cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in this study population. RYR therapy may be an attractive and relatively well studied alternative in patients who are intolerant for statins or who have objections against pharmacological lipid lowering. However, consumers need to be warned that the actual content of commercially available preparations is not assured by governmental regulations, which raises effectiveness and safety issues. Clinicaltrials.gov, nr: NCT01558050

Antidepressants (ADs) are commonly prescribed in primary care and are mostly indicated for depression. According to the literature, they are now more frequently prescribed for health conditions other than psychiatric ones. Due to their many indications in a wide range of medical fields, assessing the appropriateness of AD prescription seems to be a challenge for GPs. The aim of this study was to review evidence from guidelines for antidepressant prescription for non-psychiatric conditions in Primary Care (PC) settings.

Family physicians perceive that gut feelings, i.e. a ‘sense of reassurance’ or a ‘sense of alarm’, play a substantial role in diagnostic reasoning. A measuring instrument is desirable for further research. Our objective is to validate a questionnaire measuring the presence of gut feelings in diagnostic reasoning.

One-tenth of France's population is prescribed at least one antidepressant, primarily by General Practitioners. The reasons for this high prescription rate remain unclear. One-third of these prescriptions may not comply with clinical practice guidelines, and 20% are potentially unrelated to any psychiatric condition. Our aim was to explore how GPs declare they use antidepressants in daily practice and understand their reasons for prescribing them.

During an influenza epidemic prompt diagnosis of influenza is important. This diagnosis however is still essentially based on the interpretation of symptoms and signs by general practitioners. No single symptom is specific enough to be useful in differentiating influenza from other respiratory infections. Our objective is to formulate prediction rules for the diagnosis of influenza with the best diagnostic performance, combining symptoms, signs and context among patients with influenza-like illness.

The Research Agenda should be used as a key reference point to which new research should relate its usefulness and added value. Primary care evolves towards more interdisciplinary care, and research should focus more on the core competency of person-centred team care. There is an urgent need to develop clear definitions and appropriate research instruments for this domain. It will be a particular challenge to study comprehensive approaches in primary-care patients with multi-morbidity. The Research Agenda and the commentaries on it show future directions for primary care research. There are challenges related to a changing society, the shared responsibility and guidance of research by professionals and citizens (patients), and the need to fully integrate research as part of primary healthcare provision. There will be a need for a prioritization of spearheads to guide primary care research for the next decade: translational research, research on equity and health differences, on chronic disease and health systems research. This can not be realized without the development and maintenance of a solid research infrastructure: easily maintained and accessed observational databases, helpful information technology, strategies and techniques for patient involvement, advanced research training possibilities, and the development and validation of appropriate research instruments and outcome measures to capture the different challenges. Worldwide, primary care not only is a priority for health care policy, but it needs to become a research priority as well.