A computerised drug-drug interaction program (detection) together with clinical pharmacological experience (interpretation/evaluation) can be useful for decreasing the number of potentially harmful drug combinations. This approach may lead to an improvement in the quality of prescription, reducing possible risks and thus contributing to patient safety.

IntroductionSmoking is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and for many types of cancers. Despite recent policies, 1.1 billion people are active smokers and tobacco is the leading cause of mortality and illness throughout the world. The aim of this work was to identify smoking cessation interventions which could be implemented in primary care and/or at a community level.MethodsA systematic review of CVDs prevention guidelines was realized using the ADAPTE Process. These were identified on G-I-N and TRIP databases. Additionally, a purposive search for national guidelines was successfully undertaken. Guidelines focusing on non-pharmacological lifestyle interventions, published or updated after 2011, were included. Exclusion criteria were specific populations, management of acute disease and exclusive focus on pharmacological or surgical interventions. After appraisal with the AGREE II tool, high-quality guidelines were included for analysis. High-grade recommendations and the supporting bibliographic references were extracted. References had to be checked in detail where sufficient information was not available in the guidelines.ResultsNine hundred and ten guidelines were identified, 47 evaluated with AGREE II and 26 included. Guidelines recommended that patients quit smoking and that health care professionals provided advice to smokers but failed to propose precise implementation strategies for such recommendations. Only two guidelines provided specific recommendations. In the guideline bibliographic references, brief advice (BA) and multiple session strategies were identified as effective interventions. These interventions used Prochaska theory, motivational interviewing or cognitive-behavioral therapies. Self-help documentation alone was less effective than face-to-face counseling. Community-based or workplace public interventions alone did not seem effective.DiscussionBehavioral change strategies were effective in helping patients to give up smoking. BA alone was less effective than multiple session strategies although it required fewer resources. Evidence for community-based interventions effectiveness was weak, mainly due to the lack of robust studies.

BackgroundMultimorbidity is an intuitively appealing, yet challenging, concept for Family Medicine (FM). An EGPRN working group has published a comprehensive definition of the concept based on a systematic review of the literature which is closely linked to patient complexity and to the biopsychosocial model. This concept was identified by European Family Physicians (FPs) throughout Europe using 13 qualitative surveys. To further our understanding of the issues around multimorbidity, we needed to do innovative research to clarify this concept. The research question for this survey was: what research agenda could be generated for Family Medicine from the EGPRN concept of Multimorbidity?MethodsNominal group design with a purposive panel of experts in the field of multimorbidity. The nominal group worked through four phases: ideas generation phase, ideas recording phase, evaluation and analysis phase and a prioritization phase.ResultsFifteen international experts participated. A research agenda was established, featuring 6 topics and 11 themes with their corresponding study designs. The highest priorities were given to the following topics: measuring multimorbidity and the impact of multimorbidity. In addition the experts stressed that the concept should be simplified. This would be best achieved by working in reverse: starting with the outcomes and working back to find the useful variables within the concept.ConclusionThe highest priority for future research on multimorbidity should be given to measuring multimorbidity and to simplifying the EGPRN model, using a pragmatic approach to determine the useful variables within the concept from its outcomes.

Background Cardiovascular diseases are the world’s leading cause of morbidity and mortality. An active lifestyle is one of the cornerstones in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. An initial step in guiding primary prevention programs is to refer to clinical guidelines. We aimed to systematically review clinical practice guidelines on primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and their recommendations regarding physical activity. Methods We systematically searched Trip Medical Database, PubMed and Guidelines International Network from January 2012 up to December 2020 using the following search strings: ‘cardiovascular disease’, ‘prevention’, combined with specific cardiovascular disease risk factors. The identified records were screened for relevance and content. We methodologically assessed the selected guidelines using the AGREE II tool. Recommendations were summarized using a consensus-developed extraction form. Results After screening, 27 clinical practice guidelines were included, all of which were developed in Western countries and showed consistent rigor of development. Guidelines were consistent about the benefit of regular, moderate-intensity, aerobic physical activity. However, recommendations on strategies to achieve and sustain behavior change varied. Multicomponent interventions, comprising education, counseling and self-management support, are recommended to be delivered by various providers in primary health care or community settings. Guidelines advise to embed patient-centered care and behavioral change techniques in prevention programs. Conclusions Current clinical practice guidelines recommend similar PA lifestyle advice and propose various delivery models to be considered in the design of such interventions. Guidelines identify a gap in evidence on the implementation of these recommendations into practice.

Theme: 'Reducing the risk of chronic diseases in general practice/family medicine'