John Sahl Andersen

The Danish National Health Service Register

Introduction: To describe the Danish National Health Service Register in relation to research. Content: The register contains data collected for administrative and scientific purposes from health contractors in primary health care. It includes information about citizens, providers, and health services but minimal clinical information. Validity and coverage: The register covers everyone living in Denmark and data is available from 1990. No validity studies have been reported. Because the data is connected to reimbursement the coverage is assumed to be good. Conclusion: The strengths of the register include completeness, size, and long follow-up period. It is useful for research purposes but reservations must be made regarding its validity.

General Practice and Primary Health Care in Denmark

General practice is the corner stone of Danish primary health care. General practitioners (GPs) are similar to family physicians in the United States. On average, all Danes have 6.9 contacts per year with their GP (in-person, telephone, or E-mail consultation). General practice is characterized by 5 key components: (1) a list system, with an average of close to 1600 persons on the list of a typical GP; (2) the GP as gatekeeper and first-line provider in the sense that a referral from a GP is required for most office-based specialists and always for in- and outpatient hospital treatment; (3) an after-hours system staffed by GPs on a rota basis; (4) a mixed capitation and fee-for-service system; and (5) GPs are self-employed, working on contract for the public funder based on a national agreement that details not only services and reimbursement but also opening hours and required postgraduate education. The contract is (re)negotiated every 2 years. General practice is embedded in a universal tax-funded health care system in which GP and hospital services are free at the point of use. The current system has evolved over the past century and has shown an ability to adapt flexibly to new challenges. Practice units are fairly small: close to 2 GPs per unit plus nurses and secretaries. The units are fully computerized, that is, with computer-based patient records and submission of prescriptions digitally to pharmacies etc. Over the past few years a decrease in solo practices has been seen and is expected to accelerate, in part because of the GP age structure, with many GPs retiring and new GPs not wanting to practice alone. This latter workforce trend is pointing toward a new model with employed GPs, particularly in rural areas.

When resources get sparse: A longitudinal, qualitative study of emotions, coping and resource-creation when parenting a young child with severe disabilities

Parents who realize that their newborn child is severely disabled often experience severe physical and emotional stress. Parental well-being is essential for the care-taking of the child. It is yet not known why some cope well and others do not. The aim of this study was to explore how parents coped with parenting a disabled child and how they maintained their energy and personal resources. We explored parents’ experiences, coping and resources over a two-year period after their child was diagnosed with a severely disabling condition using a qualitative, longitudinal approach. Findings were interpreted in a theoretical framework of Lazarus and Folkman’s studies on coping and Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, as well as theories of positive illusions and benefit finding during severe adversity. We found that parents continually created and sustained their personal resources through positive cognitive reappraisals of their circumstances, the consequences of those circumstances and their coping possibilities. Nine main coping strategies were identified constituting transformative pathways in resource-creation. A theory of resource-creation is proposed as an addition to the current understanding of coping and the role of positive emotions. Coping and resources were found to be closely interrelated and portals of intervention are discussed.

Social disparities in diabetes care: a general population study in Denmark

Abstract Objective: We investigated the association between socioeconomic factors and the attainment of treatment goals and pharmacotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes in Denmark. Design: A cross-sectional population study. Setting: The municipality of Naestved, Denmark. Subjects: We studied 907 patients with type 2 diabetes identified from a random sample of 21,205 Danish citizens. Main outcome measures: The proportion of patients who were not achieving goals for diabetes care based on their HbA1c, LDL-cholesterol, blood pressure, and lifestyle, and the proportion of patients who were treated with antihypertensive and cholesterol- and glucose-lowering medication. Methods: We investigated the association of the socioeconomic factors such as age, gender, education, occupation, income, and civil status and attainment of treatment goals and pharmacotherapy in logistic regression analyses. We investigated effect modification of cardiovascular disease and kidney disease. Results: Middle age (40–65 years), low education level (i.e. basic schooling), and low household income (i.e. less than 21,400 € per year) were associated with nonattainment of goals for diabetes care. The association of socioeconomic factors with attainment of individual treatment goals varied. Patients with low socioeconomic status were more often obese, physically inactive, smoking, and had elevated blood pressure. Socioeconomic factors were not associated with treatment goals for hyperglycemia. Socioeconomic factors were inconsistently associated with pharmacotherapy. There was no difference in contacts to general practitioners according to SES. Conclusions: In a country with free access to health care, the socioeconomic factors such as middle age, low education, and low income were associated with nonattainment of goals for diabetes care. KEY POINTS Middle age, low education, and low income were associated with nonattainment of goals for diabetes care, especially for lifestyle goals. Patients with low socioeconomic status were more often obese, physically inactive, smoking, and had elevated blood pressure. Association of socioeconomic factors with pharmacotherapy was inconsistent.

LIFESTAT - Living with statins: An interdisciplinary project on the use of statins as a cholesterol-lowering treatment and for cardiovascular risk reduction.

Aim: LIFESTAT is an interdisciplinary project that leverages approaches and knowledge from medicine, the humanities and the social sciences to analyze the impact of statin use on health, lifestyle and well-being in cohorts of Danish citizens. The impetus for the study is the fact that 10% of the population in the Scandinavian countries are treated with statins in order to maintain good health and to avoid cardiovascular disease by counteracting high blood levels of cholesterol. The potential benefit of treatment with statins should be considered in light of evidence that statin use has prevalent and unintended side effects (e.g. myalgia, and glucose and exercise intolerance). Methods: The LIFESTAT project combines invasive human experiments, biomedical analyses, nationwide surveys, epidemiological studies, qualitative interviews, media content analyses, and ethnographic participant observations. The study investigates the biological consequences of statin treatment; determines the mechanism(s) by which statin use causes muscle and mitochondrial dysfunction; and analyzes achievement of treatment goals, people’s perception of disease risk, media influence on people’s risk and health perception, and the way people manage to live with the risk (personally, socially and technologically). Conclusions: The originality and success of LIFESTAT depend on and derive from its interdisciplinary approach, in which the disciplines converge into thorough and holistic study and describe the impact of statin use on the everyday life of statin users. This has the potential for much greater benefit than any one of the disciplines alone. Integrating traditional disciplines provides novel perspectives on potential current and future social, medical and personal benefits of statin use.

Predictors of undiagnosed prevalent type 2 diabetes - The Danish General Suburban Population Study.

AIMS To investigate how self-reported risk factors (including socioeconomic status) predict undiagnosed, prevalent type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). To externally validate Leicester Risk Assessment Score (LRAS), Finnish Diabetes Risk Score (FINDRISC) and Danish Diabetes Risk Score (DDRS), and to investigate how these predict a European Heart SCORE≥5% in a Danish population study. METHODS We included 21,205 adults from the Danish General Suburban Population Study. We used relative importance calculations of self-reported variables in prediction of undiagnosed T2DM. We externally validated established prediction models reporting ROC-curves for undiagnosed T2DM, pre-diabetes and SCORE. RESULTS More than 20% of people with T2DM were undiagnosed. The 7 most important self-rated predictors in sequential order were high BMI, antihypertensive-therapy, age, cardiovascular disease, waist-circumference, fitness compared to peers and family disposition for T2DM. The Area Under the Curve for prediction of undiagnosed T2DM was 77.1 for LRAS; 75.4 for DDRS and 67.9 for FINDRISC. AUCs for SCORE was 75.1 for LRAS; 62.3 for DDRS and 54.3 for FINDRISC. CONCLUSIONS BMI and self-reported cardiovascular disease are important risk factors for undiagnosed T2DM. LRAS performed better than DDRS and FINDRISC in prediction of undiagnosed T2DM and SCORE≥5%. SCORE performed best in predicting pre-diabetes.

Full journal publication of abstracts presented at the Nordic Congress of General Practice in 2009 and 2011

Abstract Objective: To determine the overall publication rates for abstracts presented at two consecutive Nordic Congresses of General Practice and to evaluate determinants for these publication rates. Design: Prospective study. Setting: MEDLINE (PubMed) and Google Scholar were searched for relevant publications from 1 January 2009 up until 31 August 2014. Methods: Abstracts accepted for oral or poster presentation were identified from the original congress booklets from the Nordic Congresses of General Practice in 2009 and 2011. Based on PubMed and Google Scholar searches, we subsequently identified full journal publications within a 36-month follow-up from both congresses. In cases of doubt, the first author was contacted directly. Main outcome measures: Full journal publication within 36 months after the congress. Results: A total of 200 abstracts were analyzed. Of these, 85 (42.5%) were identified with a full publication within 36 months after the congress. More abstracts from the 2011 congress were published compared to the 2009 congress odds ratio (OR) 1.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.10; 3.50). Abstracts accepted for oral presentation were more often published OR 1.94, 95% CI (1.08; 3.50) than accepted poster abstracts. In the multivariate analysis, a university affiliation for both first and last author increased the probability for publication OR 4.23, 95% CI (1.71; 10.42), as well as more than two authors. An optimal number, based on the highest OR, seems to be 3–4 authors with OR 2.43, 95% CI (1.07; 5.54). Qualitative studies were published at the same frequency as quantitative studies OR 1.36, 95% CI (0.57; 3.24). Conclusion: Less than half of the abstracts accepted for oral or poster presentation at two consecutive Nordic Congresses of General Practice were published as full text articles within 36 months. Key points Congress abstracts accepted for Nordic Congress of General Practice are not indexed in international search databases. Less than half of the abstracts accepted for oral or poster presentation at two consecutive Nordic Congresses of General Practice were published as full text articles within 36 months. Future congress committees could address this aspect in order to increase the visibility of and accessibility to research within the field of general practice.