DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled.

SETTING: 20 general practices in the east of the Republic of Ireland.

PARTICIPANTS: 395 patients (192 in intervention group, 203 in control group) and 29 peer supporters with type 2 diabetes.

INTERVENTION: All practices introduced a standardised diabetes care system. The peer support intervention ran over a two year period and contained four elements: the recruitment and training of peer supporters, nine group meetings led by peer supporters in participant's own general practice, and a retention plan for the peer supporters.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: HbA(1c); cholesterol concentration; systolic blood pressure; and wellbeing score.

RESULTS: There was no difference between intervention and control patients at baseline. All practices and 85% (337) of patients were followed up. At two year follow-up, there were no significant differences in HbA(1c) (mean difference -0.08%, 95% confidence interval -0.35% to 0.18%), systolic blood pressure (-3.9 mm Hg, -8.9 to 1.1 mm Hg), total cholesterol concentration (-0.03 mmol/L, -0.28 to 0.22 mmol/L), or wellbeing scores (-0.7, -2.3 to 0.8). While there was a trend towards decreases in the proportion of patients with poorly controlled risk factors at follow-up, particularly for systolic blood pressure (52% (87/166) >130 mm Hg in intervention v 61% (103/169) >130 mm Hg in control), these changes were not significant. The process evaluation indicated that the intervention was generally delivered as intended, though 18% (35) of patients in the intervention group never attended any group meetings.

CONCLUSIONS: A group based peer support intervention is feasible in general practice settings, but the intervention was not effective when targeted at all patients with type 2 diabetes. While there was a trend towards improvements of clinical outcomes, the results do not support the widespread adoption of peer support. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42541690.

METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and administered to a convenience sample of patients with diabetes (n = 402) above the age of 20 attending two hospital diabetes clinics. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests of association.

RESULTS: 63% of responders utilized CAM within the previous 12 months. CAM users were more likely to be female, to have had diabetes for longer and to have complications of their diabetes. 64% of CAM users stated that they had used CAM for managing their diabetic condition, with 46% of these having used it solely for their diabetes. Respondents using CAM to manage their diabetes were more likely to be male, to be using CAM on a daily basis and to have informed their physician of their CAM use.

CONCLUSIONS: There is a high rate of CAM use in patients with diabetes attending two hospital diabetes clinics in Bahrain. There is also a high rate of non-disclosure of CAM use to physicians. There is a continuing need for health professionals to be more aware and better trained in order to inform their decision making and communication related to CAM use.

METHODS: Cross-sectional questionnaire design. Survey questionnaire for first degree relative (sibling or child) mailed to a random sample of patients with type 2 diabetes registered with an urban hospital diabetes clinic (n = 607 eligible patients). Patients were asked to pass on questionnaires to one to two first degree relatives.

RESULTS: Questionnaires were returned from 257 families (42% response rate) with two responses provided by 107 families (a total of 364 questionnaires). The majority (94%) of first degree relatives of patients with type 2 diabetes would like to be informed about reducing their risk. Half (48%) of respondents reported being spoken to by a relative with type 2 diabetes about their risk of diabetes. Those spoken to were more likely to see themselves at risk of diabetes, to worry about developing diabetes and to view diabetes as a serious condition.

CONCLUSIONS: A role for patients with type 2 diabetes in discussing health risk in their family appears to be acceptable to many relatives. Discussion of risk and interventions to reduce health risk with their relatives should be encouraged in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS: A questionnaire, incorporating the R+D Culture Index, was sent to primary healthcare professionals in the HSE Western Region. Baseline characteristics were analysed with the use of one-way ANOVA and Chi-square test and the dependence of R&D Culture Index score on all sixteen available covariates was examined using multiple regression and regression tree modelling.

RESULTS: There was a 54% response rate to the questionnaire. Primary healthcare professionals appeared to have an interest in and awareness of the importance of research in primary care but just 15% were found to be research active in this study. A more positive attitude towards an R&D culture was associated with having had previous research training, being currently involved in research and with not being a general practitioner (GP) (p < 0.001), but much variability in the R&D culture index score remained unexplained.

CONCLUSION: Despite awareness of the importance of R&D in primary care and investment therein, primary healthcare professionals remain largely unengaged with the R&D process. This study highlights the issues that need to be addressed in order to encourage a shift towards a culture of R&D in primary care: lack of research training particularly in basic research skills and increased opportunities for research involvement. The use of the R&D Culture Index may enable groups to be identified that may be more research interested and can therefore be targeted in any future R&D strategy.

METHODS: Postal survey of random sample of general practitioners undertaken (N = 204; 46% response). Topics included practice organisation, primary prevention, acute management, secondary prevention, long-term care and rehabilitation.

RESULTS: Service organisation for both primary and secondary prevention was poor. Home management of acute stroke patients was used at some stage by 50% of responders, accounting for 7.3% of all stroke patients. Being in a structured cardiovascular management scheme, a training practice, a larger practice, or a practice employing a practice nurse were associated with structures and processes likely to support stroke prevention and care.

CONCLUSION: General practices were not fulfilling their potential to provide stroke prevention and long-term management. Systems of structured stroke management in general practice are essential to comprehensive national programmes of stroke care.

METHODS/DESIGN: In a randomised controlled trial, families with a history of social problems, substance misuse or depression are randomly allocated to an intervention or control group. The study is based in three general practices in a highly deprived area of North Dublin. Primary health care teams will be trained in conducting a multidisciplinary lengthened consultation. Families in the intervention group will participate in the new style multidisciplinary consultation. Outcomes of families receiving the intervention will be compared to the control group who will receive only usual general practitioner care. The primary outcome is the psychological health of mothers of the families and secondary outcomes include general health status, quality of life measures and health service usage.

DISCUSSION: The main aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a lengthened multidisciplinary team consultation in primary care. The embedded nature of this study in general practices in a highly deprived area ensures generalisability to other deprived communities, but more particularly it promises relevance to primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70578736.

METHODS: Cross-sectional telephone survey of 400 randomly chosen fee-paying patients living within County Dublin. There is no formal system of registration with a GP for these patients. Main outcomes were attendance of respondents at primary health care facilities and their attitudes towards continuity of care and registration with a GP. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and using parametric and non-parametric tests of association. Pearson correlation was used to quantify the association between the described variables and attitudes towards continuity and registration with a GP. Variables showing significance at the 5% level were entered into multiple linear regression models.

RESULTS: 97% of respondents had seen a GP in the previous 5 years. The mean number of visits to the GP for respondents was 2.3 per annum. 89% of respondents had a regular GP and the mean length of time with their GP was 15.6 years. 96% preferred their personal medical care to be provided within one general practice. 16% of respondents had consulted a GP outside of their own practice in the previous year. They were more likely to be female, commute a longer distance to work or have poorer health status. 81% considered it important to be officially registered with a GP practice of their choice.

CONCLUSION: Both personal and longitudinal continuity of care with a GP are important to private patients. Respondents who chose to visit GPs other than their regular GP were not easily characterised in this study and individual circumstances may lead to this behaviour. There is strong support for a system of universal patient registration within general practice.