Thomas Lichte

The Diagnosis of and Treatment Recommendations for Anxiety Disorders

BACKGROUND Anxiety disorders (panic disorder/agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, and specific phobias) are the most common mental illnesses. For example, the 12-month prevalence of panic disorder/agoraphobia is 6%. METHOD This guideline is based on controlled trials of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, retrieved by a systematic search for original articles that were published up to 1 July 2013. Experts from 20 specialty societies and other organizations evaluated the evidence for each treatment option from all available randomized clinical trials and from a synthesis of the recommendations of already existing international and German guidelines. RESULTS 403 randomized controlled trials were evaluated. It was concluded that anxiety disorders should be treated with psychotherapy, psychopharmacological drugs, or both. Response rates to initial treatment vary from 45% to 65%. Cognitive behavioral therapy is supported by higher-level evidence than any other psychotherapeutic technique. Psychodynamic therapy is recommended as a second-line treatment. Among anxiolytic drugs, the agents of first choice are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. The patients preference should be considered in the choice of treatment. Drug treatment should be continued for 6 to 12 months after remission. If psychotherapy or drug treatment is not adequately effective, then the treatment should be switched to the other form, or to a combination of both. CONCLUSION The large amount of data now available from randomized controlled trials permits the formulation of robust evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of anxiety disorders. Future work should more closely address the necessary duration of psychotherapy and the efficacy of combined psychotherapy and drug treatment.

Faculty development in general practice in Germany: experiences, evaluations, perspectives.

From 1999 to 2001, the German Society of General Practice and Family Medicine (DEGAM) pioneered a faculty development programme to help general practitioners (GPs) interested in an academic career to develop their skills in teaching, primary care, quality assurance and research. The programme involves five weekend-training sessions over 18 months and applies a learner-centred approach. Participants choose the learning formats and switch between the roles of learners, teachers, chair persons and programme organizers. This article evaluates the acceptability and feasibility of the programme. Data were collected over a two-year period from the 16 participants who completed the first training programme. The evaluation involved a focus group, telephone interviews and email questionnaires. Participants appreciated the learner centred format of the programme and gained new teaching and research skills. They also learned to better assess and critically reflect on their professional work as GPs and reported improved academic ‘survival skills’ due to collaborative networks with colleagues. The faculty development programme proved advantageous for the personal and professional development of the participating GPs. It constitutes a promising tool for the further development of General Practice as an academic discipline that is still in the process of establishing itself at medical schools in Germany. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a first step: (Lao-Tse, 6th century B.C.)

Motives of former interns in general practice for speciality-choice − Results of a cross-sectional study among graduates 2007 to 2012

Background: The influence of a final-year elective internship in general practice (IGP) on motives affecting graduates’ choice of specialty is the object of great public interest, yet still insufficiently evaluated. Longitudinal studies show the influence of numerous motives (e.g. work-life balance), but not following the IGP experience itself. Thus, we performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study of all graduates who completed the IGP in Saxony-Anhalt during 2007-2012 regarding their motives for choosing a speciality. Method: A standardized questionnaire was sent to 109 former interns in general practice. The questionnaire contained 29 items addressing three topics (personal attitudes, concept of personal and professional life, motives for speciality choice) and used single-choice and multiple-choice answers, as well as Likert scales. Correlation analysis was carried out by means of Kendalls tau. Results: The questionnaire reached 97 former interns, of which 45 (46%) responded. In the overall ranking of motives for speciality choice, family (71%), leisure time (66%) and job opportunities (48%) rated as more important than income (36%), mentoring (20%), status or scientific work (20%). Only 29% of the respondents stated that their speciality choice was changed by the IGP. If the speciality choice was already established before the IGP, the influence of the IGP on speciality choice was significantly low (r=-.5; p<.01). However, if the IGP had an influence on speciality choice, it was correlated with a new perception of general practice (r=.36; p<.01). This new perception was associated with a positive influence of the medical teacher during the IGP. Conclusion: The final-year IGP is an opportunity to change the perception of general practice in students who are still undecided. This can lead to different speciality choices in a subgroup. Personal attitudes and concepts of personal life and career were also important factors affecting speciality choice. The aspects of the positive influence exerted by medical teachers on those students who are still undecided during the IGP should be carefully evaluated.

Learning about general practice through qualitative interviews: Lessons from a seminar course with medical students

Background: A seminar course was developed in order to train medical students in qualitative research methods, while providing an introduction to the field of General Practice. Students were enabled to conduct semi-structured interviews with general practitioners (GPs), during which they learned about the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of frequently encountered medical problems. The course was carried out four times at two universities in Germany. Aims: The study explores the students’ learning experiences focusing on their research experience. Methods: Data were collected in four focus groups and analyzed. Results: The students perceived the course as very different from their usual medical education. This was appreciated, but also caused some difficulties. Three themes emerged: (1) Missing ‘facts’, (2) New horizons: ‘Thinking outside the box’, and (3) The challenge of interpretation: ‘Reading between the lines’. Conclusions: Learning qualitative research methods can be particularly challenging for medical students as the tasks and epistemology of qualitative research run counter to the usual learning formats and research paradigms in medical education. When teaching qualitative research, special care should be taken to address the cognitive dissonance experienced by students and to explain the unique contribution of qualitative research to medical practice and the field of General Practice especially.

Patients' subjective concepts about primary healthcare utilisation: the study protocol of a qualitative comparative study between Norway and Germany

Background In Germany, utilisation of ambulatory healthcare services is high compared with other countries: While a study based on the process data of German statutory health insurances showed an average of 17.1 physician-patient-contacts per year, the comparable figure for Norway is about five. The usual models of healthcare utilisation, such as Rosenstocks Health Belief Model and Andersens Behavioural Model, cannot explain these differences adequately. Organisational factors of the healthcare system, such as gatekeeping, do not explain the magnitude of the differences. Our hypothesis is that patients’ subjective concepts about primary healthcare utilisation play a major role in explaining different healthcare utilisation behaviour in different countries. Hence, the aim of this study is to explore these subjective concepts comparatively, between Germany and Norway. Methods/design With that aim in mind, we chose a comparative qualitative study design. In Norway and Germany, we are going to interview 20 patients each with qualitative episodic interviews. In addition, we are going to conduct participant observation in four German and four Norwegian primary care practices. The data will be analysed by thematic coding. Using selected categories, we are going to conduct comparative case and group analyses. Ethics and dissemination The study adheres to the Declaration of Helsinki. All interviewees will sign informed consent forms and all patients will be observed during consultation. Strict rules for data security will apply. Developed theory and policy implications are going to be disseminated by a workshop, presentations for experts and laypersons and publications.

S3-Leitlinie: Kurzfassung der Empfehlungen zur Behandlung von Angststörungen

Das Kapitel enthalt die Kurzfassung der Empfehlungen der Leitlinie sowie eine ubersichtliche Zusammenfassung in Tabellenform.

Erstellung der Leitlinie

Das Kapitel beschreibt die Ziele der Leitlinie, die Zusammensetzung des Leitliniengremiums, die Prinzipien der Erstellung und Konzepte zur Implementierung.

Clerkship in primary care: a cross-sectional study about expectations and experiences of undergraduates in medicine

Introduction: With the amendment of the medical licensure act (Approbationsordnung) in 2012, a four-week clerkship in primary care (FHV) became mandatory. We investigated the expectations with which students begin the FHV, which criteria are relevant in selecting the location for the FHV, and the experiences the students had during the FHV. Method: In a cross-sectional study, all third-year students at both medical schools in Saxony-Anhalt were surveyed in 2013 about their expectations and experiences regarding the FHV. This is the last cohort for which the FHV is optional. Questions were asked about 29 items addressing six topics (personal information, selection of FHV location, selection of FHV medical practice, expectations, experiences, and specialty selection). Results: Out of a student body of 446, responses were received from N=424 (response rate 95.1%; of which 61.8% female). Of these students, 71 (16.7%) had completed the FHV and 70 (16.5%) were planning to; another 267 students (63%) had not (yet) planned to participate in an FHV. Where a student’s parents lived, personal recommendations of a particular medical practice and the attractiveness of the region were the most important criteria for selecting the clerkship site. After completing the FHV, the learning objectives reflected themselves in the experiences of the students in a similar order and significance as in the expectations of students who planned or had not (as of yet) planned to complete the FHV. A relevant influence of the FHV confirming the choice to specialize in general practice or outpatient care was not indicated by those who had completed the FHV. Conclusion: After location and practice, the FHV is selected according to personal criteria and in connection with prioritized learning objectives. From the students’ perspective, the most frequently named learning objectives are also identified as acquired experience after completing the FHV. However, the FHV does not have a reinforcing effect on the selection of general practice as a specialty.