Minority primary care physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices on eye health and preferred sources of information

Referral pattern and co-management of keratoconus patients in primary eye care: A survey of three European countries

PURPOSE

To explore current primary care practices in keratoconus management in Portugal and compare with previous reported results in two European countries (the UK and Spain), with a special focus on interdisciplinary collaboration and referral practice patterns.

METHODS

An online survey adapted to European professional practice was distributed (via newsletters) by the Portuguese Optometrist Association to explore keratoconus patient management and referral practice patterns among Portuguese practitioners.

RESULTS

Responses of 119 optometrists were compared with previous reported of 464 eye-care practitioners (126 in the UK and 338 in Spain). Most respondents (79% in Portugal, 71% in the UK and 76% in Spain; p = 0.31) had < 5 new keratoconus patients each year. No accepted referral criterion was found (p < 0.01) because small number of the respondents (14%) in Portugal referred out at initial diagnosis (50% in the UK and Spain); 32% referred out when progression was detected (17% in the UK and 30% in Spain); and a minority (10% in Portugal, 9% in the UK, and 6% in Spain) referred out when visual acuity was affected. A majority of respondents (83%) in Portugal reported no co-management with ophthalmologists (60% in the UK and 73% in Spain; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that it is necessary to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration between practitioners to improve referral of patients with suspected keratoconus to an ophthalmology specialist to change the course of this disease, to reduce keratoconus progression and visual acuity impairment and to minimize the impact of this disease on patients' quality of life.

Mismatch of corneal specialists' expectations and keratoconus knowledge in general ophthalmologists - a prospective observational study in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

To assess whether Swiss general ophthalmologists have the minimal keratoconus knowledge that corneal specialists would expect them to have.

METHODS

Corneal specialists defined "minimal keratoconus knowledge" (MKK) with respect to definition, risk factors, symptoms and possible treatment options of keratoconus. A telephone interview survey was conducted among one hundred ophthalmologists (mean age 51.9 years (SD 9.5), 60 % male) from the German-speaking part of Switzerland. For each participant, years of work experience, number of keratoconus patients seen per year and access to a topography device were obtained. We calculated the proportion of MKK and examined in multivariate analyses whether ophthalmologists with access to topography and with greater work experience performed better than other groups.

RESULTS

No single ophthalmologist had MKK. The mean MKK was 52.0 %, and the range was 28.6-81.0 %. Per 10 years of working in private practice, the MKK decreased by 8.1 % points (95 % CI: -14.2, -2.00; p = 0.01). Only 24 % of participants correctly recalled the definition of keratoconus, 9 % all risk factors, 5 % all symptoms and 20 % all treatment modalities. The MKK values were not associated with the number of keratoconus patients seen per year and the availability of topography to diagnose keratoconus.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a substantial mismatch between corneal specialist' expectations and general ophthalmologists' knowledge about keratoconus. The low recall of symptoms and risk factors may explain why ophthalmologists diagnose relatively few cases of keratoconus, resulting in inefficient care delivery and delayed intervention.

Describing knowledge encounters in healthcare: a mixed studies systematic review and development of a classification

Background

Implementation science seeks to promote the uptake of research and other evidence-based findings into practice, but for healthcare professionals, this is complex as practice draws on, in addition to scientific principles, rules of thumb and a store of practical wisdom acquired from a range of informational and experiential sources. The aims of this review were to identify sources of information and professional experiences encountered by healthcare workers and from this to build a classification system, for use in future observational studies, that describes influences on how healthcare professionals acquire and use information in their clinical practice.

Methods

This was a mixed studies systematic review of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: OVID MEDLINE and Embase and Google Scholar were searched using terms around information, knowledge or evidence and sharing, searching and utilisation combined with terms relating to healthcare groups. ELIGIBILITY: Studies were eligible if one of the intentions was to identify information or experiential encounters by healthcare workers. DATA EXTRACTION: Data was extracted by one author after piloting with another. STUDY APPRAISAL: Studies were assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome extracted was the information source or professional experience encounter. ANALYSIS: Similar encounters were grouped together as single constructs. Our synthesis involved a mixed approach using the top-down logic of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification System (BC2) to generate classification categories and a bottom-up approach to develop descriptive codes (or “facets”) for each category, from the data. The generic terms of BC2 were customised by an iterative process of thematic content analysis. Facets were developed by using available theory and keeping in mind the pragmatic end use of the classification.

Results

Eighty studies were included from which 178 discreet knowledge encounters were extracted. Six classification categories were developed: what information or experience was encountered; how was the information or experience encountered; what was the mode of encounter; from whom did the information originate or with whom was the experience; how many participants were there; and where did the encounter take place. For each of these categories, relevant descriptive facets were identified.

Conclusions

We have sought to identify and classify all knowledge encounters, and we have developed a faceted description of key categories which will support richer descriptions and interrogations of knowledge encounters in healthcare research.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0564-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Beliefs and communication practices regarding cognitive functioning among consumers and primary care providers in the United States, 2009

INTRODUCTION

Limited research has examined primary care providers' communication with patients about maintaining cognitive functioning. Our study's objective was to compare the perceptions of consumers and primary care providers related to beliefs and communication practices about lifestyle behaviors beneficial for overall health and for maintaining cognitive functioning.

METHODS

In 2009, we submitted 10 questions to Porter Novelli's HealthStyles survey and 6 questions to their DocStyles survey. We compared consumers' (n = 4,728) and providers' (n = 1,250) beliefs, practices, and information sources related to maintaining health and cognitive functioning. We made comparisons using nonparametric statistics.

RESULTS

Approximately 76% of consumers considered their health to be good or very good; 73.4% were concerned or very concerned about the possibility that their memory may worsen with age. Women were significantly more concerned than men, and white consumers were more concerned than black and Hispanic consumers. Consumers reported they believed that intellectual stimulation (86.6%), physical activity (82.6%), and healthful diet (82.5%) prevented or delayed cognitive impairment. Providers reported advising patients to reduce cognitive impairment risk through physical activity (85.9%), intellectual stimulation (80.3%), and social involvement (67.4%). Few consumers (7.8%) reported receiving this information from providers but reported learning about strategies to maintain memory, primarily from television (50.1%), magazines (44.1%), and newspapers (33.7%).

CONCLUSION

Providers reported advising patients about how to reduce risks of cognitive impairment. Consumers reported receiving this information from other sources. Findings suggest a need to examine and assess media messages and to better understand patient-provider communication about cognitive functioning.