To collect national baseline information on asthma management practices by physicians, and to compare these practices with the recommendations of the Canadian Asthma Consensus Conference ('the guidelines').
Cross-sectional survey of representative samples of physicians in Canada in late 1996 and early 1997.
Five specialty types of physicians who manage asthma patients: respirology, pediatrics, internal medicine, allergy and clinical immunology, and general practice and family medicine. Stratified sampling by province and specialty was used to select physicians for the study. Weighting was used in the analysis to generalize the results to the national level for the five specialty groups of physicians.
Mailed questionnaire, self-administered by the respondent; three mailings of the questionnaires were used to increase the response rate.
The frequency with which each of the five specialty types chose specific asthma management choices was determined, using weighted percentages representative of the specialty groups on a national basis. ANOVA determined the statistically significant differences among the five specialties in choosing particular asthma management actions. Then, logistic regression was used to calculate the odds ratios showing an association between the characteristics of the physician respondents and specific asthma management choices that they made in the survey.
The data analysis demonstrated significant variations among physicians in asthma management practices, according to specialty type and other characteristics. The initial report was released in April 1998, and manuscripts for journal submissions are being prepared.
Periodically surveying wait times for specialist health services in Canada captures current data and enables comparisons with previous surveys to identify changes over time.
During one week in April 2012, Canadian gastroenterologists were asked to complete a questionnaire (online or by fax) recording demographics, reason for referral, and dates of referral and specialist visits for at least 10 consecutive new patients (five consultations and five procedures) who had not been seen previously for the same indication. Wait times were determined for 18 indications and compared with those from similar surveys conducted in 2008 and 2005.
Data regarding adult patients were provided by 173 gastroenterologists for 1374 consultations, 540 procedures and 293 same-day consultations and procedures. Nationally, the median wait times were 92 days (95% CI 85 days to 100 days) from referral to consultation, 55 days (95% CI 50 days to 61 days) from consultation to procedure and 155 days (95% CI 142 days to 175 days) (total) from referral to procedure. Overall, wait times were longer in 2012 than in 2005 (P
Cites: Can J Gastroenterol. 2006 Jun;20(6):411-2316779459
The main objectives of this paper are to compare Aboriginal and Canadian health status and physician use and to identify the factors associated with the use of physician services. Data are drawn from the 1991 Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS) and the 1991 General Social Survey (GSS), which are weighted random samples of the Aboriginal and total Canadian populations, respectively. The results demonstrate that Aboriginals were much less likely to use physician services, even though Aboriginals rank their health similarly to the total Canadian population. Location becomes an important aspect of both physician use and health status, with Aboriginals residing on-reserve generally having lower levels of self-assessed health and less likely to have seen a physician. While Aboriginals with the poorest health status were more likely to have seen a physician, other factors including education were found to be barriers to use of health care. Aboriginal identity and cultural orientation provided mixed results.
Genetic testing for a variety of diseases is becoming more available to primary care physicians, but it is unclear how useful physicians perceive these tests to be. We examined academic family physicians' perception of and experiences with clinical genetic testing and direct-to-consumer genetic testing.
This study is an analysis of a survey conducted as part of the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA). Academic family physicians in the United States and Canada were queried about their perception of genetic testing's utility, how frequently patients ask about genetic testing, and the importance of genetic testing in future practice and education of students and residents.
The overall survey had a response rate of 45.1% (1,404/3,112). A majority (54.4%) of respondents felt that they were not knowledgeable about available genetic tests. Respondents perceived greater utility of genetic tests for breast cancer (94.9%) and hemochromatosis (74.9%) than for Alzheimer's disease (30.3%), heart disease (25.4%), or diabetes (25.2%). Individuals with greater self-perceived knowledge of genetic tests were more likely to feel that genetic testing would have a significant impact on their future practice (23.1%) than those with less knowledge (13.4%). Respondents had little exposure to direct-to-consumer genetic tests, but a majority felt that they were more likely to cause harm than benefit.
Academic family physicians acknowledge their lack of knowledge about genetic tests. Educational initiatives may be useful in helping them incorporate genetic testing into practice and in teaching these skills to medical students and residents.
To explore women's perspectives on the acceptability and content of reminder letters from the family physician for Papanicolaou (Pap) test screening and the effect of reminder letters on compliance with screening recommendations.
A population-based survey was conducted in 23 Family Health Networks and Primary Care Networks participating in a demonstration project to increase the delivery of preventive services in Ontario. Questionnaires were mailed to randomly selected women aged 35 to 69 years who had received a reminder letter for a Pap test from their family physician within the previous six months. Two focus groups were conducted with a volunteer sample of respondents.
The usable response rate was 54.3% (406/748). Two-thirds (65.8%, 267/406) of women who completed the survey recalled receiving the reminder letter. Overall, 52.3% (212/405) reported having a Pap test in the past six months. Among women who recalled the reminder letter and scheduled or had a Pap test, 71.4% (125/175) reported that the letter influenced their decision to be screened. The majority of respondents (80.8%, 328/406) wanted to continue to receive reminder letters for Pap tests from their physician, and 34.5% (140/406) wanted to receive additional information about cervical screening. Focus group interviews indicated that women who have had a Pap test may still be unsure about screening recommendations, what the test detects, and the rationale for follow-up procedures.
Reminder letters in family practice were viewed as useful and influenced women's decisions to undergo Pap test screening. Women who have had a Pap test may still need additional information about the test.
Physical and occupational therapy are beneficial for persons with chronic arthritis; however, access is problematic. The goal was to examine issues related to access to these services for patients with chronic arthritis.
We used two data sources: 1) questionnaires sent to a random sample of 600 family physicians and to all 85 rheumatologists in the province of Quebec; and 2) interviews of 211 patients with physician-confirmed chronic arthritis recruited from 34 primary care settings in Quebec.
Only 11.5% of family physicians and 31.7% of rheumatologists referred patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to rehabilitation, whereas 60.4% of family doctors referred patients with osteoarthritis. Only 26.1% of patients felt that they required rehabilitation and this was associated with lower self-efficacy (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.72, 0.99) and higher educational level (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.01, 4.36).
Family physicians are less likely to refer patients with RA to therapy. Only about a quarter of patients with chronic arthritis treated in primary care perceived the need for these services. Efforts to improve arthritis care should address education of physicians and patients regarding the benefits of rehabilitation and there should be efforts to increase therapy resources in order to enhance access.