General Practitioners' Views on Communication About Dietary Supplements During Periodic Health Examinations: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Germany.

IF 3 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE
Thomas Okon, Sascha Eickmann, Sophia Wagner, Hansjörg Baurecht, Anne Herrmann
{"title":"General Practitioners' Views on Communication About Dietary Supplements During Periodic Health Examinations: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Germany.","authors":"Thomas Okon, Sascha Eickmann, Sophia Wagner, Hansjörg Baurecht, Anne Herrmann","doi":"10.1177/21501319251333388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The global dietary supplements (DS) market is expanding, numerous adults regularly consume DS. Potential interactions with prescribed medications raise concerns, but communication about DS intake during medical consultations remains limited. This study explores general practitioners' (GPs) perceptions of communication on DS during periodic health examinations (PHEs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional online survey among 162 German GPs between May and August 2021. The pseudonymized web-based questionnaire assessed DS-related was carried out to analyze quantitative data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 162 general practitioners (GPs) participated in the survey, aged 50.2 years (±11.1). While 64.8% of GPs considered DS to be an important topic, 38.8% rarely or never (<25% of conducted PHE) addressed DS during PHEs. Personal DS use (Cramers' <i>V</i> = 0.407; <i>P</i> < .001) and considering DS an important topic (Cramers' <i>V</i> = 0.231; <i>P</i> = .016) were associated with more frequent discussions about DS. Time constraints (24.9%), competing priorities (21.4%), and uncertainty about DS (20.5%) were identified to be the main barriers. Suggestions for improving communication included offering more reliable information and including DS in the medication plan.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first study addressing communication about DS in Germany. Despite recognizing the relevance of DS, GPs' communication practices remain limited due to time constraints and competing priorities. Integrating DS in the PHE could identify potential interactions with medication, strengthen patient-doctor-relationship, and satisfy patients' needs for individualized counseling. Implementation of standardized DS documentation in medication plans and the provision of evidence-based information resources may improve patient safety and fulfill GPs informational needs.</p>","PeriodicalId":46723,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","volume":"16 ","pages":"21501319251333388"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12062601/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Primary Care and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319251333388","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The global dietary supplements (DS) market is expanding, numerous adults regularly consume DS. Potential interactions with prescribed medications raise concerns, but communication about DS intake during medical consultations remains limited. This study explores general practitioners' (GPs) perceptions of communication on DS during periodic health examinations (PHEs).

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey among 162 German GPs between May and August 2021. The pseudonymized web-based questionnaire assessed DS-related was carried out to analyze quantitative data.

Results: In total, 162 general practitioners (GPs) participated in the survey, aged 50.2 years (±11.1). While 64.8% of GPs considered DS to be an important topic, 38.8% rarely or never (<25% of conducted PHE) addressed DS during PHEs. Personal DS use (Cramers' V = 0.407; P < .001) and considering DS an important topic (Cramers' V = 0.231; P = .016) were associated with more frequent discussions about DS. Time constraints (24.9%), competing priorities (21.4%), and uncertainty about DS (20.5%) were identified to be the main barriers. Suggestions for improving communication included offering more reliable information and including DS in the medication plan.

Conclusion: This is the first study addressing communication about DS in Germany. Despite recognizing the relevance of DS, GPs' communication practices remain limited due to time constraints and competing priorities. Integrating DS in the PHE could identify potential interactions with medication, strengthen patient-doctor-relationship, and satisfy patients' needs for individualized counseling. Implementation of standardized DS documentation in medication plans and the provision of evidence-based information resources may improve patient safety and fulfill GPs informational needs.

全科医生在定期健康检查中对膳食补充剂沟通的看法:德国的一项横断面调查
导读:全球膳食补充剂(DS)市场正在扩大,许多成年人经常消费DS。与处方药的潜在相互作用引起了关注,但在医疗咨询期间关于DS摄入量的沟通仍然有限。本研究探讨全科医生在定期健康检查(phe)期间对DS沟通的看法。方法:我们在2021年5月至8月期间对162名德国全科医生进行了横断面在线调查。采用基于网络的假名性ds相关问卷进行定量数据分析。结果:共162名全科医生(gp)参与调查,年龄50.2岁(±11.1岁)。64.8%的全科医生认为DS是一个重要的话题,38.8%的全科医生很少或从来没有(V = 0.407;p v = 0.231;P = 0.016)与更频繁地讨论退行性痴呆相关。时间限制(24.9%)、竞争优先级(21.4%)和DS的不确定性(20.5%)被确定为主要障碍。改善沟通的建议包括提供更可靠的信息和将DS纳入用药计划。结论:这是德国第一个关于DS传播的研究。尽管认识到DS的相关性,但由于时间限制和优先事项的竞争,全科医生的沟通实践仍然有限。将DS纳入PHE可以识别与药物的潜在相互作用,加强医患关系,满足患者对个性化咨询的需求。在用药计划中实施标准化的DS文件和提供循证信息资源可以提高患者安全并满足全科医生的信息需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.80%
发文量
183
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信