115
Views
3
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Screening and prevention in Swiss primary care: a systematic review

, , , , &
Pages 853-870 | Published online: 16 Dec 2011

Abstract

Background and objectives

Prevention is a challenging area of primary care. In Switzerland, little is known about attitudes to and performance of screening and prevention services in general practice. To implement prevention services in primary care it is important to know about not only potential facilitators but also barriers. Primary care encompasses the activities of general practitioners, including those with particular interest and/or specializations (eg, pediatrics, gynecology). The aim of this study was to review all studies with a focus on prevention services which have been conducted in Switzerland and to reveal barriers and facilitators for physicians to participate in any preventive measures.

Methods

The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE and BIOSIS were searched from January 1990 through December 2010. Studies focussing on preventive activities in primary care settings were selected and reviewed. The methodological quality of the identified studies was classified according to the guidelines in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.

Results

We identified 49 studies including 45 descriptive studies and four randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Twelve studies addressed the prevention of epidemics, eleven out of them vaccinations. Further studies focused on lifestyle changes, physical activity counselling, smoking cessation, cardiovascular prevention and cancer screening. Perceived lack of knowledge/training and lack of time were the most commonly stated barriers. Motivation, feasibility and efficiency were the most frequently reported supporting factors for preventive activities. The methodological quality was weak, only one out of four RCTs met the applied quality criteria.

Conclusion

Most studies focussing on screening and prevention activities in primary care addressed vaccination, lifestyle modification or cardiovascular disease prevention. Identified barriers and facilitators indicate a need for primary-care-adapted education and training which are easy to handle, time-saving and reflect the specific needs of general practitioners. If new prevention programs are to be implemented in general practices, RCTs of high methodological quality are needed to assess their impact.

Background

The WHO as well as most national health care authorities strongly recommend preventive services since there is a clear and overwhelming evidence of their effectiveness in many areas, especially in primary prevention. Primary prevention has shown to be four times as cost-effective as secondary prevention.Citation1 Counselling and vaccinations are the most important preventive services,Citation2 but there is also clear evidence for some screening procedures. Despite the fact that these services can easily be provided, especially in a primary care setting, the delivery of preventive services remains low.Citation3

In Switzerland, prevention is a central public health objective and should therefore play a major role in general practitioners’ (GPs) daily work. In consequence, over the years, several preventive programs as for example the recent “gesundheitscoaching-project” (“health coaching project”) from the Swiss college of primary care physicians (KHM) have been launched.Citation4 If new prevention programs in primary care are to be introduced successfully, it is important to know about not only potential facilitators but also barriers to implementation. So far, little is known about GPs’ attitudes towards and performance of screening and prevention services in Switzerland. Several studies from the US have determined some barriers and facilitators to the performance of preventive services,Citation5Citation9 namely and most importantly lack of time, along with provider forgetfulness, inconvenience and logistical difficulties, lack of expertise, lack of positive feedback, disagreement with recommendations, patient discomfort or refusal, high cost, and lack of third-party reimbursement. It remains unclear if these findings can be transferred to Switzerland. The Swiss health care system differs in many aspects, especially with regard to insurance schemes. In contrast to countries such as the US, in Switzerland all residents are insured and these insurances cover a large variety of preventive services. Therefore, the aim of this study was to review all studies with a focus on prevention services which have been conducted so far in Switzerland and to reveal the reported barriers and facilitators in Switzerland’s primary care setting.

Methods

Search strategy

The databases PubMed, BIOSIS, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically from January 1990 through December 2010 using medical subject headings and title key words related to “prevention”, “screening” and “primary care”. In addition, a manual search was done for four Swiss journals (“Schweizerische Ärztezeitung”, “Primary Care”, “Ars Medici” and “Managed Care”) which focus on primary care. The search was limited to studies performed in Switzerland and included articles in German, English and French.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were considered relevant if they addressed screening and prevention activities (including primary, secondary and tertiary prevention) in Swiss primary care. In addition, we included studies which were conducted in settings in which a primary care provider played a key role (eg, as an author or as a study participant). Review articles, study descriptions and studies about epidemiological prevalence were excluded. The methodological quality of all included studies was assessed using the guidelines in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.Citation10

Data extraction and validity assessment

Data extraction was performed by one of the authors (DE) and checked independently by a second (MZ). Final extraction was decided by consensus of both. Included studies have been systematically analyzed for study motivation, topics, methods, age and gender of participants, results, conclusions, barriers and supporting factors for preventive measures and the specific role of the GP.

Results

Description of studies

The search of the databases yielded 1918 references, of which 49 met our inclusion criteria for detailed data abstraction (). All studies were conducted in Switzerland and were published in German, English or French between 1990 and 2010. The main characteristics and the results are summarized and presented in . Most of the included studies were cross-sectional surveys and descriptive studies, with four randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The preventive interventions provided in the studies varied widely according to the addressed preventive subject. Twelve studies addressed the prevention of infectious diseases, especially influenza by providing vaccinationsCitation11Citation22 or by performing a specific diagnostic test.Citation22 For clinical topics, most prevention activities addressed cardiovascular disease prevention,Citation23Citation30 cancer screening,Citation31Citation34 HIV,Citation35Citation37 prevention of osteoporosis,Citation38,Citation39 addiction prevention,Citation40,Citation41 and othersCitation42Citation47 (). The most common observed intervention was counseling on lifestyle changes with twelve studies.Citation30,Citation48Citation59 Among them, six addressed counselling about physical activity and two dealt with smoking cessation. Most of the studies addressed specific age groups or patient characteristics, such as influenza vaccination in people older than 65 years, or enhancing physical activity in patients younger than 65 years.

Figure 1 Search strategy and article review process.

Figure 1 Search strategy and article review process.

Table 1 Key features of studies included in the systematic review

Table 2 Subjects of prevention

Methodological quality

Our review revealed a remarkable number of studies performed in Swiss primary care with a focus on preventive services. Most of these studies did not define a clear intervention and did not define clear clinical outcomes or process parameters.

Only six studies were two-armed studies with a defined control and intervention group. Of these six only four studies reported a randomization process. In consequence, only four studies fulfilled the criteria for a randomized controlled trial (RCT).Citation41,Citation48,Citation51,Citation53 Detailed information is displayed in .

In order to assess the methodological quality of the included RCTs, we used the guidelines in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement.Citation10 Overall, the methodological quality was weak. None of the RCTs fulfilled all of the CONSORT criteria. The best study fulfilled 30 out of 37 checklist items.Citation53 Two of the remaining three RCTs met more than half and one of the RCTs met less than half of the criteria.

Barriers

displays the most frequently mentioned barriers in screening and prevention services from a GP’s as well as from a patient’s perspective.

Table 3 The most frequently presented barriers and facilitators

Barriers from GP’s perspective

Thirty nine studies reported any barriers which precluded GPs from performing screening and prevention services.Citation12,Citation13,Citation15Citation17,Citation19Citation22,Citation24Citation27,Citation29Citation33,Citation35,Citation36,Citation39Citation53,Citation55,Citation57Citation59 The most frequently cited barriers were “lack of knowledge/skills” (20 out of 39),Citation16,Citation24,Citation25,Citation30Citation33,Citation35,Citation40Citation44,Citation46,Citation47,Citation49,Citation51,Citation52,Citation58,Citation59 “lack of time/ high workload” (11 out of 39)Citation12,Citation29,Citation30,Citation32,Citation33,Citation43,Citation48,Citation51,Citation53,Citation55,Citation59 and “own disbeliefs” (9 out of 39).Citation17,Citation19,Citation25,Citation30,Citation39Citation41,Citation50,Citation57

Lack of knowledge/skills

Lack of knowledge or skills was the most common reported barrier and mentioned in studies with completely different clinical targets, eg, in studies addressing cardiovascular risk factors,Citation24,Citation25,Citation30 cancer prevention,Citation31,Citation33 addiction preventionCitation40,Citation41 or in different prevention interventions for infectious diseases.Citation16,Citation35 The main barrier reported was the lack of specific communication skills for counselling in lifestyle changesCitation43,Citation49 and insufficient routine in specific counselling.Citation51,Citation58,Citation59 Insufficient sources of information were mentioned, eg, in the field of advice-giving for travelling.Citation52 Five further studies on different areas of prevention also reported a lack of knowledge and skills as a barrier.Citation42Citation44,Citation46,Citation47

Lack of time/high workload

Time constraints were found in several studies, independent of the prevention focus.Citation29,Citation30,Citation32 Five studies focusing on preventive lifestyle changes reported a lack of time as a major barrier in counselling regarding physical activity,Citation48,Citation53,Citation55 cannabis use, smoking cessation or alcohol reduction.Citation43,Citation51,Citation59

A study addressing the prevention of hepatitis B by providing vaccination stated a lack of time to verify vaccination status and to convince patients to be immunised.Citation12

Own disbeliefs

Own disbeliefs were a barrier found in many studies. This includes reluctance to use tests, eg, a detection-test of alcoholism;Citation41 ambivalence about the use of methadone in patients with drug use disorders;Citation40 disbeliefs in the quality of interventions;Citation17 or in their necessity;Citation25,Citation30 or skepticism about current guidelines.Citation19,Citation39

Barriers from patient’s perspective

We identified 24 studies which reported barriers precluding patients from using screening and prevention services.Citation11,Citation13,Citation14,Citation16,Citation17,Citation19,Citation23,Citation24,Citation29,Citation30,Citation32,Citation36,Citation37,Citation39,Citation43,Citation48,Citation50Citation56,Citation59 The most frequently cited barriers were “the lack of GP’s engagement” (5 out of 24),Citation13,Citation14,Citation32,Citation50,Citation54 “the lack of interest or time” (8 out of 24),Citation23,Citation43,Citation48,Citation51,Citation53,Citation59 and “own disbeliefs” (3 out of 24).Citation13,Citation14,Citation19

Lack of GP’s engagement

In the patient’s view a lack of GP engagement was a common barrier. This referred to the lack of encouragement from the GP,Citation13,Citation14,Citation32 or missed advice eg, in smoking cessationCitation50 or concerning travel medicine.Citation54

Lack of interest

Four studies described a lack of patient interest in physical activity counselling,Citation48,Citation53,Citation59 and in smoking and alcohol counsellingCitation43,Citation51 as a barrier to using preventive services.

Lack of time and own disbeliefs

The lack of time was mentioned as a major barrier in three studies.Citation23,Citation48,Citation53

The patients’ doubts about the necessity and effectiveness of an influenza vaccination were revealed as barrier in three different studies.Citation13,Citation14,Citation19

Facilitators

The included studies revealed several facilitators to the performance of screening and prevention services both from the GP’s and the patient’s perspective.

Facilitators from GP’s perspective

Independent of the prevention subject, 43 studies reported any factor which supports GPs to perform preventive activities.Citation11Citation13,Citation15,Citation19Citation31,Citation33Citation37,Citation39Citation48,Citation50Citation59 Most frequently cited facilitators were “counselling” (15 out of 43),Citation12,Citation19,Citation20,Citation31,Citation33,Citation36,Citation37,Citation39,Citation41,Citation43,Citation44,Citation47,Citation48,Citation51Citation53 “conviction/motivation” (10 out of 43),Citation24,Citation26,Citation33,Citation35,Citation37,Citation41,Citation42,Citation45,Citation50,Citation58 and “feasibility/usefulness” (7 out of 43).Citation13,Citation21,Citation22,Citation27,Citation29,Citation48,Citation50,Citation53,Citation55,Citation58

Motivation/attitude

Physicians’ acknowledgement of responsibility for prevention and high motivation to implement prevention were the main facilitators in several studies, independent of the main prevention focus (lifestyle changes,Citation48,Citation51Citation53 infectious diseases,Citation12,Citation19,Citation20,Citation36,Citation37 cancer screening,Citation31,Citation33 and further aspects of preventionCitation41,Citation43,Citation44,Citation47).

Education/knowledge

Several studies showed that a specific awarenessCitation33 and knowledge about a disease, as well as an existing guideline (eg, guidelines on endocarditis preventionCitation24) or a specific training or educational programmes can increase the probability that the GP will provide prevention services.Citation26,Citation35,Citation37,Citation41,Citation42 Also the role of special skills was highlighted in an ophthalmological study in elderly patients in routine ophthalmologic controls to preserve vision as factor that increases specific prevention.Citation45

Feasibility/usefulness

Counselling of inactive patients,Citation48,Citation53,Citation55 smokers,Citation50 and patients using cannabisCitation58 was considered as feasible in daily practice. This was considered as a facilitator in using these preventive interventions. Useful tools in chronic disease management (patient education, reminder)Citation29 and for identification of patients at atherothrombotic risk (ankle/brachial pressure index)Citation27 were also found to be facilitators in performing preventive services.

Facilitators from patient’s perspective

We identified 23 studies describing factors which support patients to use preventive activities.Citation11,Citation13,Citation14,Citation16,Citation18,Citation24,Citation28,Citation29,Citation32,Citation34,Citation37,Citation38,Citation40,Citation43,Citation48,Citation50Citation58 The most frequently cited facilitators were “education/ knowledge” (8 out of 23),Citation11,Citation14,Citation16,Citation22,Citation24,Citation32,Citation50,Citation54,Citation55 “conviction/ motivation/information” (5 out of 23)Citation28,Citation34,Citation43,Citation48,Citation50,Citation51 and “feasibility/ usefulness” (4 out of 23).Citation11,Citation13,Citation38,Citation53

Counselling

Information and GP’s advice to use screening and preventive services are supporting factors.Citation11,Citation14,Citation16,Citation22,Citation24,Citation32,Citation55 Receiving information and advice from a physician was not only an important determinant in the decision to receive influenza vaccinationCitation11,Citation14 but also regarding smoking cessation, or preventive arrangements in the context of travel medicine.Citation50,Citation54

Conviction/motivation

The patient’s interest or own initiative (eg, in smoking cessationCitation50,Citation51) was found to be an important factor in different studiesCitation28,Citation34,Citation48 Another study showed that the patient’s perceived usefulness of tetanus, influenza and pneumococcal vaccination were associated with vaccination status.Citation13

Feasibility/usefulness

A personal proposal suggesting a hepatitis B vaccination by a health care professional was considered as an effective measure to achieve high vaccination coverage.Citation11

By a specific intervention (feedback, counselling) one study observed that patients’ physical activity could be improved effectively.Citation53

Sponsorship/conflicts of interest

The following papers in our review indicated sponsorship or conflicts of interest, as noted

  • Bovier et al:Citation13 The research was funded by the Swiss Academy for Medical Sciences and the Federal Office for Public Health (contract no 316.98.6766)

  • Cornuz et al:Citation43 One co-author is supported by a Population Health Investigator Award from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research and received sabbatical support from the Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine and the Department of Medicine, University of Lausanne

  • Eichler et al:Citation25 Suppor t by the Helmut Hor ten Foundation

  • Etter et al:Citation51 Support by the Health Authority of the Canton of Geneva

  • Gasser et al:Citation38 Provision of the digital processing system: Merck Sharp and Dohme-Chibret AG Switzerland

  • Gauthey et al:Citation14 Grant from the President of the State Department for Health and Social Affairs

  • Gugelmann et al:Citation15 Financial support of the study by SmithKline Beecham corporation

  • Hayoz et al:Citation27 Support by a grant from Bristol–Myers Squibb and Sanofi–Synthelabo

  • Jimmy and Martin:Citation53 Financial support by Helsana AG

  • Marki et al:Citation55,Citation56 Financial support of the study by Health Promotion Switzerland (project 1191)

  • Meystre-Agustoni et al:Citation36 Sponsoring by the Federal Office of Public Health Page et al:Citation37 This study was financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant no 3346-62449) and by an unrestricted educational grant of Merck Sharp and Dohme-Chibret AG, Glattbrugg, Switzerland

  • Pelet et al:Citation40 Financial support by the Federal Office of Public Health

  • Pichert et al:Citation33 Swiss Cancer League (administrative support), Janssen–Cilag AG, Baar (provision of adresses of physicians)

  • Sebo et al:Citation57 University Hospitals of Geneva, Novartis (subsidiary unrestricted research)

  • Stoll et al:Citation39 Sponsoring by Roche, MSD, Novartis and Hoechst

  • Wunderli et al:Citation22 This study was collaboration between Roche Pharma AG, which made available the reagents free of charge, the Swiss Sentinel Surveillance Network (SSSN), and the Swiss National Influenza Center. The study was funded by grants from Roche Pharma AG and the SSSN.

Discussion

The study was performed to review all studies with a focus on prevention services in Swiss primary care settings, and to identify barriers and facilitators which influenced physicians in performing and patients in using preventive services.

We could include numerous studies which were conducted in Switzerland during the last twenty years. Taking into account the small number of all studies performed in primary care in Switzerland, the proportion of studies focussing on preventive services is remarkably high. This fact may demonstrate the importance of prevention in primary care, not only in acute or infectious, but also in chronic illnesses. Many studies have shown that preventive activities are an effective way to reduce the burden of chronic illnesses.Citation2,Citation60Citation62 A major finding of our review was that the methodological quality of the available studies is very low. Our results strongly emphasize that future projects should have clearly defined populations, interventions, and outcomes to be able to create valid data about the efficacy but also efficiency of preventive services in primary care.

We identified 49 studies which addressed the prevention of epidemics, lifestyle changes, physical activity counselling, smoking cessation, cardiovascular disease prevention and cancer screening. Included studies revealed several barriers and facilitators in performing screening and prevention activities from GP’s as well as from patients’ perspective. Perceived lack of knowledge/skills, lack of time/high workload and own disbeliefs were the most commonly stated barriers to performing screening and prevention services from the GP’s perspective. The lack of GP engagement, lack of interest and time as well as own disbeliefs were the most frequently reported barriers in using preventive activities from the patients’ perspective. Two reviews on cancer screening, one specifically on colorectal cancer screeningCitation63 and one screening for both colorectal and breast cancerCitation64 have found very similar barriers, including the GP’s disbelief in the usefulness of testing on the physician’s side and the lack of recommendation to screen as a barrier from the patient’s perspective. A British study on intervention against excessive alcohol consumption showed that GPs report too little training to deal with the problem in everyday practice.Citation65 An American study based on a questionnaire about cholesterol treatment revealed an insufficient knowledge and awareness about the treatment goal of non-HDL-Cholesterol.Citation66

Both reviews on cancer preventionCitation63,Citation64 also revealed the lack of financial coverage by insurance as a major barrier. This problem did not arise in our study since in Switzerland everyone is obliged to have health insurance that also covers many of the mentioned preventive interventions. The following supporting factors in performing preventive services were mentioned by GPs: motivation/attitude, education/ knowledge, feasibility/usefulness. From a patient’s perspective, counselling, conviction/motivation and feasibility/ usefulness were the most frequently reported supporting factors for using preventive activities. Similar facilitators such as extent of knowledge or attitude of both the GP and the patient were found in cancer screening.Citation63,Citation64 In the US an electronic medical record reminder was found to augment the influenza and pneumococcal vaccination rate.Citation67

Sponsorship

Half of the disclosed sponsorships relate to the pharmaceutical industry and the other half originates in foundations and official authorities. This latter finding suggests that some political efforts are made to support prevention in primary care.

Strengths and limitations

Our review included a broad variety of studies addressing prevention in primary care over a time period of two decades, but has several limitations. The main limitation is that the methodological quality of the studies is very low. Due to this, conclusions about effective preventive services are not possible. Furthermore, the focus on the country rather than on a single disease or a disease class precludes clear findings regarding barriers and facilitators.

Conclusion

Most reviews focussing on screening and prevention activities in primary care addressed vaccination, lifestyle modification and cardiovascular disease prevention. Identified barriers and facilitators indicate a need for primary-care-adapted education and training in prevention which are easy to handle, time saving, and reflect the specific needs of general practitioners. If new prevention programs are to be implemented in general practices, RCTs of high methodological quality are needed to assess their impact.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

References

  • TengsTOAdamsMEPliskinJSFive-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectivenessRisk Anal19951533693907604170
  • SoxHCJrPreventive health services in adultsN Engl J Med199433022158915957993408
  • AndersonLMMayDSHas the use of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening increased in the United States?Am J Public Health19958568408427762721
  • Practice SBoGThe health coach Available from: http://www.gesundheitscoaching-khm.ch/public/willkommen.phpAccessed December 5, 2011German
  • BurackRCBarriers to clinical preventive medicinePrim Care19891612452502649905
  • KottkeTEBrekkeMLSolbergLIMaking “time” for preventive servicesMayo Clin Proc19936887857918331981
  • McPheeSJRichardRJSolkowitzSNPerformance of cancer screening in a university general internal medicine practice: comparison with the 1980 American Cancer Society GuidelinesJ Gen Intern Med1986152752813772615
  • SpitzMRChamberlainRMSiderJGFuegerJJCancer prevention practices among Texas primary care physiciansJ Cancer Educ19927155601571246
  • WenderRCCancer screening and prevention in primary care. Obstacles for physiciansCancer199372Suppl 3109310998334664
  • MoherDHopewellSSchulzKFCONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trialsJ Clin Epidemiol2010638e1e3720346624
  • BirchmeierMFavratBPecoudAImproving influenza vaccination rates in the elderlyJ Fam Pract2002511085612836644
  • BovierPABouvier GallacdhiMChamotESwiss primary care physicians reporting of utility and use of recommended vaccinations for adultsSwiss Med Wkly200513513–1419219915909236
  • BovierPAChamotEBouvier GallacchiMLoutanLImportance of patients’ perceptions and general practitioners’ recommendations in understanding missed opportunities for immunisations in Swiss adultsVaccine200119324760476711535327
  • GautheyLToscaniLChamotELarequiTRobertCFInfluenza vaccination coverage in the geriatric population of the State of Geneva, SwitzerlandEur J Public Health1999913640
  • GugelmannRJFreedGLDesgrandchampsDDieboldPHepatitis B vaccination: knowledge and acceptance by Swiss physiciansSoz Praventivmed199843Suppl 1S57609833268
  • HasseBMollCOehyKRothlinMKrauseMAnti-infectious prophylaxis after splenectomy: current practice in an eastern region of SwitzerlandSwiss Med Wkly200513519–2029129615986267
  • MatterHCCloettaJZimmermannHMeasles, mumps, and rubella: monitoring in Switzerland through a sentinel network, 1986–1994. Sentinella ArbeitsgemeinschaftJ Epidemiol Community Health199549Suppl 1487561669
  • MatterHCSchmidt-SchlapferGZimmermannHMonitoring of a whooping cough epidemic 1994/1995 in Switzerland using the sentinel notification system. Sentinella RegistrySchweiz Med Wochenschr199612634142314328848704
  • Moiradat RytzSChuardCRegameyCVaccination against influenza in the hospital milieu and by family physicians in Fribourg in 1997: facts and opinionsSchweiz Med Wochenschr20001301034935510763212
  • RichardJLVidondoBMausezahlMA 5-year comparison of performance of sentinel and mandatory notification surveillance systems for measles in SwitzerlandEur J Epidemiol2008231556517899399
  • VaudauxBSteinemannMAGeneral hepatitis B vaccination in Switzerland: what is the attitude of vaccinating physicians?Soz Praventivmed199843Suppl 1S47569833267
  • WunderliWThomasYMullerDADickMKaiserLRapid antigen testing for the surveillance of influenza epidemicsClin Microbiol Infect20039429530012667239
  • Brunner-La RoccaHPMartiBSignificance of after care by family practitioner following myocardial infarct from the patient’s viewpointSchweiz Rundsch Med Prax19938249140614128272706
  • Cerletti-KnuselDCHoffmannALambrechtJTFluckigerUZimmerliWKnowledge and re-evaluation of the prevention of endocarditis in dentistrySchweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed2005115540440815960450
  • EichlerKZollerMTschudiPSteurerJBarriers to apply cardiovascular prediction rules in primary care: a postal surveyBMC Fam Pract20078117201905
  • GaspozJMLovisCGreenYDo physicians modify their pre-hospital management of patients in response to a public campaign on chest pain?Am J Cardiol19988112143314389645893
  • HayozDBounameauxHCanovaCRSwiss Atherothrombosis Survey: a field report on the occurrence of symptomatic and asymptomatic peripheral arterial diseaseJ Intern Med2005258323824316115297
  • MuntwylerJNosedaGDarioliRGrunerCGutzwillerFFollathFNational survey on prescription of cardiovascular drugs among outpatients with coronary artery disease in SwitzerlandSwiss Med Wkly20031335–6889212644962
  • GötschiASHuberFWeberADisease management in patients with coronary heart diseaseArs Medici20074160163 German
  • BallyKMartinaBHalterUIslerRTschudiPBarriers to Swiss guideline-recommended cholesterol management in general practiceSwiss Med Wkly201014019–2028028520131121
  • EscherMSappinoAPPrimary care physicians’ knowledge and attitudes towards genetic testing for breast-ovarian cancer predispositionAnn Oncol20001191131113511061607
  • HugueninMGutzwillerFMartinJPaccaudFWietlisbachVPhysical examination in screening for breast cancer: who benefits?Schweiz Med Wochenschr19901204981042305222
  • PichertGDietrichDMoosmannPZwahlenMStahelRASappinoAPSwiss primary care physicians’ knowledge, attitudes and perception towards genetic testing for hereditary breast cancerFam Cancer200323–415315814707526
  • PrazVJichlinskiPAymonDLeisingerHJScreening of the prostate cancer. “lnstantaneous” of a daily practice among 300 general practitioners of the canton of VaudRev Med Suisse20051442840284216382715
  • MalinverniRMullerMBilloNEHIV infection: survey among practicing physicians in BernSchweiz Med Wochenschr19921222699310041626252
  • Meystre-AgustoniGJeanninADubois-ArberFPrevention practices of primary health care physicians in Switzerland in the context of the HIV/Aids epidemic: changes between 1990 and 2002Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique2007552879617434279
  • PageJWeberRSomainiBNostlingerCDonathKJaccardRQuality of generalist vs specialty care for people with HIV on antiretroviral treatment: a prospective cohort studyHIV Med20034327628612859328
  • GasserKMMuellerCZwahlenMOsteoporosis case finding in the general practice: phalangeal radiographic absorptiometry with and without risk factors for osteoporosis to select postmenopausal women eligible for lumbar spine and hip densitometryOsteoporos Int200516111353136215711776
  • StollBEEidenbenzJRPerrochetF“Medical audit” of physicians’ attitudes on preventing osteoporosis. Rennaz groupRev Med Suisse Romande1999119214514810091552
  • PeletADollSHuissoudTResplendinoJBessonJFavratBMethadone maintenance treatment in the Swiss Canton of Vaud: demographic and clinical data on 1,782 ambulatory patientsEur Addict Res20051129910615785071
  • PerdrixADecreyHPecoudABurnandBYersinBDetection of alcoholism in the medical office: applicability of the CAGE questionnaire by the practicing physician. Group of Medical Practitioners PMUSchweiz Med Wochenschr199512538177217787481633
  • BucherHCWeinbacherMGyrKInfluence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentrationBMJ199430969577617647950558
  • CornuzJGhaliWADi CarlantonioDPecoudAPaccaudFPhysicians’ attitudes towards prevention: importance of intervention-specific barriers and physicians’ health habitsFam Pract200017653554011120727
  • HausserDJeangrosCPrevention in general practice – results of a study of ambulatory health care in the Waadt and Freiburg cantonsTher Umsch19904797537582244334
  • PeltenburgMKienerMIseliHPPreserving vision in the elderly: a survey to start a quality development program in general practicePraxis (Bern 1994)2004931–291414964039
  • RamseierFOur knowledge is patchwork. Survey on the adherence to international guidelines concerning acute and long-term therapy in recurrent depressions and diseases in the schizophrenic fieldPraxis (Bern 1994)199685247927978701169
  • Steurer-SteyCFletcherMVetterWSteurerJPatient education in asthma: a survey of physicians’ knowledge of the principles and implementation of self management in practiceSwiss Med Wkly200613635–3656156517043948
  • AllenspachECHandschinMKutlar JossMPatient and physician acceptance of a campaign approach to promoting physical activity: the “Move for Health” projectSwiss Med Wkly200713719–2029229917594542
  • BovierPASeboPAbetelGGeorgeFStalderHAdherence to recommended standards of diabetes care by Swiss primary care physiciansSwiss Med Wkly200713711–1217318117457700
  • EckertTJunkerCMotivation for smoking cessation: what role do doctors play?Swiss Med Wkly200113135–3652152611727671
  • EtterJFRielleJCPernegerTVLabeling smokers’ charts with a “smoker” sticker: results of a randomized controlled trial among private practitionersJ Gen Intern Med200015642142410886477
  • HatzCKrauseEGrundmannHTravel advice: a study among Swiss and German general practitionersTrop Med Int Health1997216129018297
  • JimmyGMartinBWImplementation and effectiveness of a primary care based physical activity counselling schemePatient Educ Couns200556332333115721975
  • KrauseEGrundmannHHatzCPretravel advice neglects rabies risk for travelers to tropical countriesJ Travel Med19996316316710467152
  • MarkiABauerGBAngstFNiggCRGillmannGGehringTMSystematic counselling by general practitioners for promoting physical activity in elderly patients: a feasibility studySwiss Med Wkly200613629–3048248816937326
  • MarkiABauerGFNiggCRConca-ZellerAGehringTMTranstheoretical Model-based exercise counselling for older adults in Switzerland: quantitative results over a 1-year periodSoz Praventiv Med2006515273280
  • SeboPAbetelGStalderHBovierPAImportance of lifestyle counselling by primary care physicians for diabetic patientsSwiss Med Wkly200613635–3656657317043949
  • HallerDMMeynardALefebvreDTyleeANarringFBroersBBrief intervention addressing excessive cannabis use in young people consulting their GP: a pilot studyBr J Gen Pract20095956016617219275832
  • SchmidMEgliKMartinBWBauerGHealth promotion in primary care: evaluation of a systematic procedure and stage specific information for physical activity counselingSwiss Med Wkly200913945–4666567119950033
  • HengstlerPBattegayECornuzJBucherHBattegayMEvidence for prevention and screening: recommendations in adultsSwiss Med Wkly200213227–2836337312428190
  • KrokeABoeingHRossnagelKWillichSNHistory of the concept of ‘levels of evidence’ and their current status in relation to primary prevention through lifestyle interventionsPublic Health Nutr20047227928415003135
  • OrtegonMMRedekopWKNiessenLWCost-effectiveness of prevention and treatment of the diabetic foot: a Markov analysisDiabetes Care200427490190715047646
  • GuessousIDashCLapinPDoroshenkMSmithRAKlabundeCNColorectal cancer screening barriers and facilitators in older personsPrev Med2010501–231020006644
  • VedelIPutsMTEMonetteMMonetteJBergmanHBarriers and facilitators to breast and colorectal cancer screening of older adults in primary care: A systematic reviewJ Geriatr Oncol2011228598
  • WilsonGBLockCAHeatherNCassidyPChristieMMKanerEFIntervention against excessive alcohol consumption in primary health care: a survey of GPs’ attitudes and practices in England 10 years onAlcohol Alcohol201146557057721690169
  • ViraniSSSteinbergLMurrayTBarriers to Non-HDL cholesterol goal attainment by providersAm J Med2011124987688021854896
  • LooTSDavisRBLipsitzLAElectronic medical record reminders and panel management to improve primary care of elderly patientsArch Intern Med2011171171552155821949163