A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 144

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 144
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 212
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3106
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Training specialists to write appropriate reply letters to general practitioners about patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms; A cluster-randomized trial. | LitMetric

Training specialists to write appropriate reply letters to general practitioners about patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms; A cluster-randomized trial.

Patient Educ Couns

Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Biostatistics, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Pedagogical Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Published: October 2015

Objective: To evaluate effects of a communication training for specialists on the quality of their reply letters to general practitioners (GPs) about patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS).

Methods: Before randomization, specialists included ≤3 MUPS patients in a multi-center cluster-randomized trial. In 14h of MUPS-specific communication training, 2.5h focused on reply letters. Letters were discussed with regard to reporting and answering GPs' referral questions and patients' questions, and to reporting findings, explaining MUPS with perpetuating factors and giving advice. After the training, all doctors again included ≤3 MUPS patients. Reply letters to GPs were assessed for quality and blindly rated on a digital scale.

Results: We recruited 478 MUPS patients and 123 specialists; 80% of the doctors wrote ≥1 reply letters, 285 letters were assessed. Trained doctors reported (61% versus 37%, OR=2.55, F(1281)=6.60, p(group*time)=.01) and answered (63% versus 33%, OR=3.31, F(1281)=5.36, p(group*time)=.02) patients' questions more frequently than untrained doctors.

Conclusion: Training improves reply letters with regard to patients' questions, but not with regard to the following: GPs' referral questions, somatic findings, additional testing, explaining, and advice.

Practice Implications: Training specialists to write appropriate reply letters needs more focus on explanation and advice.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.021DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

reply letters
28
training specialists
12
mups patients
12
patients' questions
12
letters
9
specialists write
8
write appropriate
8
appropriate reply
8
letters general
8
general practitioners
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!