Clinical reasoning significantly impacts physicians’ performance and patient care quality. Research into learning transfer within clinical reasoning education, especially in managing multimorbidity in Family Medicine, is crucial. This study evaluates the impact of concept maps (CMs) on promoting clinical reasoning skills among undergraduate students, compared to traditional teaching methods (TM). A mixed methods approach was used in a controlled, non-randomized study with fifth-year Family Medicine undergraduates allocated to sessions using either CMs or TM. Quantitative data included a feedback questionnaire and evaluation of an individual task. Qualitative data comprised responses to an open-ended question and analysis of problem representation in the individual task. Among 313 eligible students, 112 participated (CM: 60, TM: 52). Both groups reported high satisfaction with their teaching methods. The CM group valued the holistic view and organization for managing multimorbidity cases, showing higher odds of positive scores on individual tasks (differences not statistically significant). Additionally, the CM group had a more homogeneous code matrix for problem representation in two clinical vignettes. While no definitive evidence supports the superiority of CMs over traditional methods, promising trends were noted. The CM group showed improved performance in individual tasks and better organization in managing multimorbidity cases. Further investigation is recommended to explore varying levels of CM usage and modifications to pre-class workloads. Not applicable.

Background: There is a need for a deeper understanding of the barriers to research in family medicine (FM) and to consider the perceptions and perspectives of professionals. Our study aims to provide a strategic view for research capacity building in FM. We included the perspective of family physician researchers (FPR) on the existing barriers to investigation in this context. Objectives: To understand and characterize the barriers to research in FM (personal and structural), from the perspective of Portuguese family physicians who are researchers. Methods: A qualitative study, of phenomenological nature, was performed, through the conduction of semi-structured interviews with FPR, from 2019 to 2022. Data analysis and thematic coding were done on MAxQDA®, with inductive and deductive approaches, until data saturation was reached. Results: A total of 12 family physicians/researchers were interviewed. Seven main themes were identified as barriers to research: time, professional valorization, funding, ethics committees, infrastructure, management/institutions, and participants. Each theme is divided into subthemes that make it possible to assess how a barrier can affect researchers in performing research activities. Conclusion: Our study highlights the identification of 7 main barriers. Structuring them into sub-themes not only improved the organization of our results but also provided robust support for the next phase, namely the application of a survey with the aim of gaining a deeper insight into the repercussions that these barriers to FPR have at a national level. This research is crucial to laying the foundations for a policy document that offers well-defined and tailored recommendations to address the barriers we have uncovered.

Introduction The qualities of primary healthcare (PHC) make it a very relevant environment for research; however, there is still work to be done to enhance the research capabilities of family physicians in healthcare units. Considering there is no ongoing review that specifically addresses this objective, the proposed goal of this scoping review is to determine the depth of the literature on the current strategies that support research capacity building among family physicians in the context of PHC. Methods and analysis The scoping review will include studies from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and grey literature, published from 2008 to 2023, that address strategies to promote research capacity building among family physicians in the context of PHC. Only studies published in English, Portuguese or Spanish will be considered. All study designs, including quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies, will be eligible for inclusion. The literature search will be performed from January to March of 2024 and data charting will employ a descriptive-analytical method, systematically summarising study objectives, methodologies, findings and implications. This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the review will employ the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Ethics and dissemination This review does not need ethical approval. Peer-reviewed publications, policy summaries, presentations at conferences and involvement with pertinent stakeholders are all part of our outreach approach.

Introdução: Portugal é o país da Organização para a Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Económico com maior consumo de ansiolíticos, hipnóticos e sedativos, sendo uma proporção significativa constituída por benzodiazepinas ou análogos, associados a efeitos de tolerância e dependência. Por este motivo, em alternativa às benzodiazepinas para tratamento da insónia, algumas publicações identificam outros fármacos com efeito hipnótico, como antidepressivos, anti-histamínicos, antipsicóticos ou anticonvulsivantes. Assim, torna-se necessário compreender a evolução do consumo destes medicamentos, pelo que foi objetivo deste estudo avaliar a evolução da dispensa de benzodiazepinas, outros fármacos ansiolíticos, hipnóticos ou sedativos não benzodiazepínicos, fármacos com potencial uso off-label na insónia e os resultados de indicadores dos Cuidados de Saúde Primários neste âmbito na região de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo.Material e Métodos: Realizou-se um estudo em base de dados, censitário e retrospetivo, no período de 2013 até 2020, avaliando-se a evolução das variáveis total de doses diárias definidas, doses diárias definidas por 1000 habitantes por dia (DHD) e dos indicadores relevantes. Os dados foram extraídos da plataforma SIARS da Administração Regional de Saúde de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo.Resultados: Verificou-se uma diminuição da dispensa de benzodiazepinas (de 57,44 para 51,77 DHD) mas o aumento da dispensa de não benzodiazepinas e de fármacos com potencial uso off-label (de 6,56 para 8,56 DHD e de 14,70 para 25,92 DHD, respetivamente). O zolpidem foi o mais dispensado entre os fármacos não benzodiazepínicos, acompanhando a tendência crescente de dispensa (de 4,86 para 6,96 DHD). Do conjunto de fármacos com potencial para uso off-label verificaram-se aumentos da dispensa para a trazodona (de 3,81 para 7,92 DHD), mirtazapina (de 3,52 para 6,48 DHD), pregabalina (de 3,15 para 4,87 DHD), quetiapina (de 2,68 para 4,59 DHD) e gabapentina (de 1,32 para 1,90 DHD), mas mais significativo ou apenas verificado nas formulações com dosagem mais baixa. A mediana dos resultados do indicador “proporção de idosos sem prescrição de sedativos, ansiolíticos e hipnóticos” em 2015 foi de 81,0, tendo em 2020 aumentado para 84,9. A mediana do indicador “proporção de utentes sem prescrição prolongada de ansiolíticos, sedativos e hipnóticos” em 2019 foi de 93,6 e aumentou para 94,3 em 2020.Conclusão: Globalmente, verificou-se uma redução da dispensa de benzodiazepinas prescritas na Região de Lisboa e Vale do Tejo. Parece existir uma alteração do padrão de prescrição no tratamento da insónia. São necessários estudos mais robustos para confirmar esta observação.

Introduction: Multimorbidity (MM) by age groups curves behaviour and its relationship with disease severity are not well established. Considering the Charlson Index as a prognosis instrument to measure disease severity, the objectives were to characterise the MM and its severity through the Charlson index in Portuguese inpatients. Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive study with an analytical component was drawn through data exported from the hospitalisations Homogeneous Diagnostic Groups database of the Portuguese-NHS during the year 2015. The study included 22 chronic health conditions: the 15 predicted in the Charlson index and 7 more (hypertension, obesity, dyslipidaemia, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, anxiety and depression). The bi and multivariable analyses were performed through the generalised linear model considering binary logistic regression. In the analysis, the IBM SPSS version 24.0 tool was used. Results: A total of 800,376 hospitalisations were analysed, from which 42% (336,398) corresponds to males and 58% (463,978) to females. The average age of the sample was 59.8 years, being higher in men (62.34 years) than in women (57.95 years). The mean number of diagnostics per person was 1.6, being greater in men (1.8). Disease severity was also higher in males. The greatest disease severity (Charlson >5) occurred at middle-aged (between 55 and 74 years). Throughout life behaviour of the average number of conditions and the average Charlson index without adjustment for age is similar. By the weight attributed to age, the Charlson index age-adjusted shows a sharper tendency of elevation after the forty years. The distribution by age groups of the age-adjusted Charlson index, categorised according to the cut-offs defined in the methodology (cut-off 0 to <5; cut-off 5 to <9; cut-off ≥9), showed an abrupt growth for the cut-off ≥9 at 55/59 years, peaking at 75/79 years, while for cut-off 5 at <9 the most marked growth occurs at 65/69 and the peak about 5 years later than for the cut-off ≥9. After the 90 years old all measures averages (MM and severity disease) suffer a decline. Discussion: The results suggest that the greatest disease severity are male associated and occurred at middle ages. There was an association between any MM measure and the Charlson index. The MM curves behaviour showed a decline in nonagenary age, suggesting healthy people live longer. Questioned if the MM and its severity is not a middle age health issue. As limitations, we identified its cross-sectional design and the omission of socioeconomic information and the use of the same medical conditions to measure MM and disease severity. Other studies and analysis models should explore the complexity of the MM phenomenon and its impact on long life.

Introdução: A associação entre multimorbilidade e gravidade da doença não está bem estabelecida. Os objetivos foram caracterizar a multimorbilidade e determinar a gravidade da doença, bem como verificar se existe associação entre o número e natureza dos diagnósticos e o índice de Charlson.Material e Métodos: Estudo transversal realizado através de dados exportados da base de dados de internamentos, durante o ano de 2015. O estudo incluiu 22 doenças crónicas: 15 previstas no índice de Charlson e sete condições médicas frequentes (hipertensão, obesidade, dislipidemia, osteoartrose, osteoporose, ansiedade e depressão). A análise foi realizada através do modelo linear generalizado, regressão logística binária. Na análise, utilizou-se a ferramenta IBM SPSS versão 24.0.Resultados: Foram analisadas 800 376 hospitalizações, das quais 42% correspondem a homens. A idade média da amostra foi de 59,8 anos, sendo maior nos homens (62,3 anos). O número médio de problemas por pessoa foi de 1,6, sendo superior nos homens (1,8). A gravidade da doença também foi maior nos homens. O pior prognóstico esteve associado a seis ou mais condições por pessoa. O maior preditor de gravidade da doença foi o número de problemas, seguido da demência e diabetes.Discussão: Os resultados parecem confirmar a diferença entre sexos quanto ao padrão de morbilidade. O número de condições por pessoa foi o maior preditor de gravidade da doença, particularmente a presença de seis ou mais condições por pessoa.Conclusão: A principal limitação identificada foi o uso das mesmas condições médicas para medir a multimorbilidade e a gravidade da doença. Outros estudos e modelos de análise devem explorar a complexidade do fenómeno da multimorbilidade.