Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
January Focus

Population Medicine

Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (582): 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp11X548866
Roger Jones
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

This month Hannaford's group revisits the symptom iceberg, that mass of undeclared symptoms experienced in the community that lies below the waterline of medical consultation (page 12). They studied 2-week symptom recall in 2474 adults under 60, half of whom had experienced one or more of a list of 25 symptoms offered to them, and found that individuals reported a mean of 3.66 different symptoms. There were predictable relationships between the number of symptoms experienced and a range of demographic parameters, with household income emerging as a notably strong associated factor; feeling tired, headaches, joint pain, and back pain were all reported by over 25% of responders. Almost 2% reported unintended weight loss, and 2.5% have seen blood in their stools. Most of these symptoms will never have become the subject of a medical consultation, but their sheer ubiquity emphasises the need to carefully consider the politically sensitive question of improving access to primary care.

Chronic illness was also strongly associated with reporting more symptoms, although this relatively young population would be likely to have less chronic illness than within a wider age range. The increasingly important topic of comorbidity is examined by Salisbury and colleagues (page 18), who found that 16% of patients (those with more than one chronic condition as defined by the Quality Outcomes Framework) account for 32% of all general practice consultations and, using a wider definition of chronic illness, the 58% of patients who have multimorbidity are responsible for 78% of consultations. Longitudinal continuity of care was found to be less in those with comorbidity.

The challenges of providing adequate primary care structures to deliver effective chronic disease management are explored in a European study involving 10 countries by van Lieshout and colleagues (page 25), who identified the adequacy of the electronic patient record and practice computer systems as crucial ingredients of effective care. Chronic disease management also appeared to be enhanced in countries such as Finland and Spain, where health centres tend to be larger and employ more doctors and other staff. The importance of the electronic medical record – this time in supporting preventive medical activities – is emphasised in a French study by Blanquet and co-workers (page 32).

If you had thought that the use of antidepressants in the management of depression is straightforward, read our opposing discussion papers on the topic – Middleton and Moncrieff leave us with the slogan ‘unlikely to do any good and may do some harm’ (page 47), while Anderson and Haddad advocate a careful assessment of the appropriateness of drug and non-drug interventions in individual patients (page 50). As GP commissioning consortia begin to emerge from the shadows of the NHS White Paper this will be an important topic of debate – how much pressure should we exert to ensure greater access to the psychological therapies? In a time of financial constraint, what are the short and long-term costs and benefits of pharmacotherapy and psychological treatments?

Commissioners of services also need an evidence base on which to base decisions about end-of-life care. Stephen Barclay has highlighted a series of gaps in our knowledge about the needs of terminally ill patients and the different arrangements that may be required for patients dying of cancer and non-cancer diseases, such as heart failure (page 53). Barclay identifies a series of questions that represent a substantial research agenda for primary care in this extremely important field.

Reporting the first steps in an inspiring initiative, Graham Watt's first ‘Deep End’ article introduces a series on providing care for the most socioeconomically deprived people in Scotland, involving 100 practices caring for over 430 000 patients (page 66).

We hope that global health and an increasingly international perspective will find their way into the Journal in future, and Thompson and Ballard's call to action for general practice to become much more engaged in promoting a ‘low-carbon healthcare system’ will resonate with many (page 3). Another consideration for commissioners of services, as well as for our interactions with individual patients.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2011
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 61 (582)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 61, Issue 582
January 2011
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Population Medicine
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Population Medicine
Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (582): 2. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X548866

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Population Medicine
Roger Jones
British Journal of General Practice 2011; 61 (582): 2. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X548866
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • January Focus
  • January Focus
Show more January Focus

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242