Regional and patient-related factors influencing the willingness to use general practitioners as coordinators of the treatment in northern Germany - results of a cross-sectional observational study

Heike Hansen, Ingmar Schäfer, Sarah Porzelt, Agata Kazek, Dagmar Lühmann, Martin Scherer, Heike Hansen, Ingmar Schäfer, Sarah Porzelt, Agata Kazek, Dagmar Lühmann, Martin Scherer

Abstract

Background: In most countries, the general practitioner (GP) is the first point of contact in the healthcare system and coordinator of healthcare. However, in Germany it is possible to consult an outpatient specialist even without referral. Coordination by a GP might thus reduce health expenditures and inequalities in the healthcare system. The study describes the patients' willingness/commitment to use the GP as coordinator of healthcare and identifies regional and patient-related factors associated with the aforementioned commitment to the GP.

Methods: Cross-sectional observational study using a standardised telephone patient survey in northern Germany. All counties and independent cities within a radius of 120 km around Hamburg were divided into three regional categories (urban areas, environs, rural areas) and stratified proportionally to the population size. Patients who had consulted the GP within the previous three months, and had been patients of the practice for at least three years were randomly selected from medical records of primary care practices in these districts and recruited for the study. Multivariate linear regression models adjusted for random effects at the level of federal states, administrative districts and practices were used as statistical analysis methods.

Results: Eight hundred eleven patients (25.1%) from 186 practices and 34 administrative districts were interviewed. The patient commitment to a GP attained an average of 20 out of 24 possible points. Significant differences were found by sex (male vs. female: + 1.14 points, p < 0.001), morbidity (+ 0.10 per disease, p = 0.043), education (high vs. low: - 1.74, p < 0.001), logarithmised household net adjusted disposable income (- 0.93 per step on the logarithmic scale, p = 0.004), regional category (urban areas: - 0.85, p = 0.022; environs: - 0.80, p = 0.045) and healthcare utilisation (each GP contact: + 0.30, p < 0.001; each contact to a medical specialist: - 0.75, p = 0.018). Professional situation and age were not significantly associated with the GP commitment.

Conclusion: On average, the patients' commitment to their GP was relatively strong, but there were large differences between patient groups. An increase in the patient commitment to the GP could be achieved through better patient information and targeted interventions, e.g. to women or patients from regions of higher urban density.

Trial registration: The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02558322).

Keywords: General practice; General practitioner-centred healthcare; Healthcare utilisation; Regional comparison; Urban-rural differences.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Recruitment process in the patient population

References

    1. Rattay P, Butschalowsky H, Rommel A, Prütz F, Jordan S, Nowossadeck E, et al. ­­­Inanspruchnahme der ambulanten und stationären medizinischen Versorgung in Deutschland. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung. Gesundheitsschutz. 2013;56:832–844. doi: 10.1007/s00103-013-1665-x.
    1. Larisch A, Heuft G, Engbrink S, Brähler E, Herzog W, Kruse J. Behandlung psychischer und psychosomatischer Beschwerden - Inanspruchnahme, Erwartungen und Kenntnisse der Allgemeinbevölkerung in Deutschland. Z Psychosom Med Psychother. 2013;59:153–169. doi: 10.13109/zptm.2013.59.2.153.
    1. Mack S, Jacobi F, Gerschler A, Strehle J, Höfler M, Busch MA, et al. Self-reported utilization of mental health services in the adult German population-evidence for unmet needs? Results of the DEGS1-mental health module (DEGS1-MH) Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2014;23:289–303. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1438.
    1. Greenfield G, Foley K, Majeed A. Rethinking primary care’s gatekeeper role. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2016;354:i4803. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i4803.
    1. Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Versorgungsstrukturen in der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung (GKV-Versorgungsstrukturgesetz (GKV-VStG)) Bundesgesetzblatt Teil I. 2011. p. 2983.
    1. Schneider A, Donnachie E, Tauscher M, Gerlach R, Maier W, Mielck A, et al. Costs of coordinated versus uncoordinated care in Germany: results of a routine data analysis in Bavaria. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011621. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011621.
    1. Zentner A, Velasco Garrido M, Busse R. Do primary care physicians acting as gatekeepers really improve health outcomes and decrease costs? A systematic review of the concept gatekeeping. Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband Der Ärzte Des Öffentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) 2010;72:e38–e44. doi: 10.1055/s-0029-1234126.
    1. Thode N, Bergmann E, Kamtsiuris P, Kurth B-M. [predictors for ambulatory medical care utilization in Germany]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung. Gesundheitsschutz. 2005;48:296–306. doi: 10.1007/s00103-004-1004-3.
    1. Klingenberg A, Broge B, Herholz H, Szecsenyi J, Ose D. Evaluation of special GP-centered health care contracts in Germany by the participating GPs. present situation and future perspectives. Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany: 1983) 2010;105:89–95. doi: 10.1007/s00063-010-1012-8.
    1. Kürschner N, Weidmann C, Müters S. Who enrolls in a general practitioner model? The behavioral model of health services use and general practitioner-centered care in Germany. Bundesgesundheitsbl Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz. 2011;54:221–227. doi: 10.1007/s00103-010-1205-x.
    1. Schnitzer S, Balke K, Walter A, Litschel A, Kuhlmey A. [do gatekeeping programs increase equality of health care in Germany? A comparison of the health care situation of participants and nonparticipants]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung. Gesundheitsschutz. 2011;54:942–950. doi: 10.1007/s00103-011-1317-y.
    1. Mehring M, Donnachie E, Schneider A, Tauscher M, Gerlach R, Storr C, et al. Impact of regional socioeconomic variation on coordination and cost of ambulatory care: investigation of claims data from Bavaria. Germany BMJ open. 2017;7:e016218. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016218.
    1. Schäfer I, Hansen H, Pohontsch N, Bole L, Wagner H-O, Führ M, et al. Regional variation of patient behaviour and reasons for consultation in the general practice of northern Germany: protocol for an observational study. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010738. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010738.
    1. Schäfer I, Hansen H, Ruppel T, Lühmann D, Wagner H-O, Kazek A, Scherer M. Regional differences in reasons for consultation and general practitioners’ spectrum of services in northern Germany – results of a cross-sectional observational study. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21:1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-1093-6.
    1. BBSR Homepage - Siedlungsstrukturelle Kreistypen - Laufende Raumbeobachtung - Raumabgrenzungen. . .
    1. Brauns H, Steinmann S. Educational reform in France, West-Germany and the United Kingdom: updating the CASMIN educational classification. ZUMA Nachrichten. 1999;23:7–44.
    1. GKV-Versicherte sind mit der medizinischen Versorgung zufrieden. . Accessed 15 Jul 2019.
    1. Detollenaere J, Hanssens L, Schäfer W, Willems S. Can you recommend me a good GP? Describing social differences in patient satisfaction within 31 countries. Int J Qual Health Care. 2018;30:9–15. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx157.
    1. Rommel A, Bretschneider J, Kroll LE, Prütz F, Thom J. Inanspruchnahme psychiatrischer und psychotherapeutischer Leistungen – Individuelle Determinanten und regionale Unterschiede. J Health Monitoring. 2017. 10.17886/RKI-GBE-2017-111.2.
    1. Hansen H, Pohontsch NJ, Bole L, Schäfer I, Scherer M. Regional variations of perceived problems in ambulatory care from the perspective of general practitioners and their patients - an exploratory focus group study in urban and rural regions of northern Germany. BMC Fam Pract. 2017;18:68. doi: 10.1186/s12875-017-0637-x.
    1. Albrecht M, Etgeton S, Ochmann RR. Faktencheck Gesundheit - Regionale Verteilung von Arztsitzen (Ärztedichte) - Haus-.Kinder-, Frauen Und Augenärzte . Accessed 18 Mar 2016.
    1. Tillmann J, Puth M-T, Weckbecker K, Klaschik M, Münster E. Prevalence and predictors of having no general practitioner - analysis of the German health interview and examination survey for adults (DEGS1) BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20:84. doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-0976-x.
    1. Kok R, Avendano M, Mackenbach JP. The association between socioeconomic status and changes in health in Europe. In: Borsch-Supan A, Brugiavini A, Jürges H, Kapteyn A, Mackenbach JP, Siegrist J, Weber G, editors. First Results From the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (2004–2007): Starting the Longitudinal Dimension. Mannheim: Mannheim Research Institute for the Economics of Aging (MEA); 2008. pp. 125–130.
    1. Dalstra JA, Kunst AE, Borrell C, Breeze E, Cambois E, Costa G, et al. Socioeconomic differences in the prevalence of common chronic diseases: an overview of eight European countries. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34:316–326. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyh386.
    1. Fjær EL, Balaj M, Stornes P, Todd A, McNamara CL, Eikemo TA. Exploring the differences in general practitioner and health care specialist utilization according to education, occupation, income and social networks across Europe: findings from the European social survey (2014) special module on the social determinants of health. Eur J Pub Health. 2017;27:73–81. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckw255.
    1. Schoen C, Osborn R, How SKH, Doty MM, Peugh J. In chronic condition: experiences of patients with complex health care needs, in eight countries, 2008. Health Affairs (Project Hope) 2009;28:w1–16. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.1.w1.
    1. DEGAM-Position Paper on the Future . Positions on the future of general practice and family medicine 2012. 2016.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit