Rohrer, James E.

Objective: To assess the association between self-assessed stair-climbing limitation and weight control among family medicine patients, after adjustment for age, gender, marital status, body mass index (BMI), and co-morbidity. Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of a cohort of 840 adult family medicine patient records drawn from a large family medicine department in Rochester, Minnesota. Weight control was measured as no change or decline in BMI over approximately 1 year. Results: Adjusting for co-morbidity and other confounders using multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that limited stair-climbing ability was unrelated to weight control over approximately 1 year. Instead, patients with BMI ≥ 30 were more likely to control their weight (p<0.01), and age exhibited a non-linear relationship with weight control. The odds of weight control were lower for patients between the ages of 36 and 45 years than for those aged 18—35 years (p<0.01). Conclusions: In our sample of family medicine patients, self-assessed stair-climbing limitations did not preclude weight control. Weight gain prevention programmes might be targeted at patients who are entering middle age.

Objective: To assess how physical limitations relate to self-rated health among family medicine patients after adjustment for severity of illness. Design: A telephone survey of family medicine patients, linked with medical record information. Setting: A large family medicine department in Rochester, Minnesota, USA. Subjects: Self-ratings of health were linked to medical records for 804 adult patients. Results: Adjusting for severity and other confounders using multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that having physical limitations was inversely and independently related to good self-rated health (adjusted odds ratio = 0.20, P<0.001). Odds ratios also were lower for high severity of illness (adjusted odds = 0.43). Morbidly obese patients and patients older than 65 years of age also had reduced odds of good self-rated health. Conclusions: In our sample of family medicine patients, part of the disparity in health status experienced by people with physical limitations is attributable to greater severity of illness, age and obesity.

Open-access or advanced-access scheduling, which opens the clinic calendar to patients without requiring them to schedule far in advance of the visit, is being introduced in primary care for the purpose of improving access. None of the evaluations reported to date have measured differences in actual visits that might be associated with different scheduling systems. The purpose of this study was to compare utilization of visits to primary care providers for patients served by an open-access clinic with utilization patterns of patients served at clinics not using open-access scheduling. We hypothesized that the odds that a continuing patient received more than one primary care visit would be greater in the clinic where open-access scheduling was in use than in comparison clinics. Our study provides mixed support for the hypotheses. After adjustment for case mix, stable chronic patients treated in open-access clinics may sometimes have greater odds of receiving two or more preventive care visits. However, these effects do not occur in all clinics, suggesting that other clinic characteristics may overcome the effects of open-access scheduling.

Ongoing communication with cancer patients about their treatment preferences is important. A survey assessing treatment preferences was distributed to 100 cancer patients who were newly diagnosed, 100 in remission after therapy, and 60 who had failed therapy/ relapsed; 100 cancer caregivers, and 100 noncancer patients attending the cancer center for benign hematologic problems. Almost 59% of respondents preferred treatment even if the chance of cure was less than 10%. Among subjects who did not have cancer, less than 50% wanted treatment under these circumstances, whereas over 70% of cancer patients who had failed treatment or relapsed wanted treatment ( P = .0994). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the adjusted odds of preferring aggressive treatment were less for those without cancer and those with newly diagnosed cancer than for respondents who had failed treatment or were in relapse. The preference for aggressive cancer treatment is related to medical condition.