English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Abstract Background Though urinary incontinence (UI) is a bothersome condition for the individual patient, the patients tend not to inform their physician about UI and the physician tend not to ask the patient. Recently different initiatives have been established in Danish general practices to improve the management of UI. The aim of this study was to identify the handling of urinary incontinence (UI) in Danish general practices after distribution of clinical guidelines and reimbursement for using a UI diary. Methods In October 2001, a questionnaire was sent to 243 general practitioners (GPs) in Frederiksborg County following distribution of clinical guidelines in July 1999 (UI in general practice) and September 2001 (UI in female, geriatric, or neurological patients). A policy for a small reimbursement to GPs for use of a fluid intake/voiding diary in the assessment of UI in general practice was implemented in October 2001. Information concerning monthly reimbursement for using a voiding diary, prescribed drugs (presumably used for treating UI), UI consultations in outpatient clinics, and patient reimbursement for pads was obtained from the National Health Service County Registry. Results Of the 132 (54%) GPs who replied, 87% had read the guidelines distributed 2 years before, but only 47% used them daily. The majority (69%) of the responding GPs had read and appreciated 1–3 other UI guidelines distributed before the study took place. Eighty-three percent of the responding GPs sometimes or often actively asked their patients about UI, and 92% sometimes or often included a voiding diary in the UI assessment. The available registry data concerning voiding diary reimbursement, prescribed UI drugs, UI consultations in outpatient clinics, and patient reimbursement for pads were insufficient or too variable to determine significant trends. Conclusion GPs management of UI in a Danish county may be reasonable, but low response rate to the questionnaire and insufficient registry data made it difficult to evaluate the impact of different UI initiatives.</p

bmc family practice

The handling of urinary incontinence in Danish general practices after distribution of guidelines and voiding diary reimbursement: an observational study