Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Informing primary care reform in Greece: patient expectations and experiences (the QUALICOPC study)

  • Christos Lionis1Email author,
  • Sophia Papadakis1, 2,
  • Chrysanthi Tatsi1,
  • Antonis Bertsias1,
  • George Duijker1,
  • Prodromos-Bodosakis Mekouris3,
  • Wienke Boerma4,
  • Willemijn Schäfer4 and
  • on behalf of the Greek QUALICOPC team
BMC Health Services ResearchBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:255

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2189-0

Received: 8 October 2015

Accepted: 24 March 2017

Published: 5 April 2017

Abstract

Background

Primary health care is the cornerstone of a high quality health care system. Greece has been actively attempting to reform health care services in order to improve heath outcomes and reduce health care spending. Patient-centered approaches to health care delivery have been increasingly acknowledged for their value informing quality improvement activities. This paper reports the quality of primary health care services in Greece as perceived by patients and aspects of health care delivery that are valued by patients.

Methods

This study was conducted as part of the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study. A cross-sectional sample of patients were recruited from general practitioner’s offices in Greece and surveyed. Patients rated five features of person-focused primary care: accessibility; continuity and coordination; comprehensiveness; patient activation; and doctor–patient communication. One tenth of the patients ranked the importance of each feature on a scale of one to four, and nine tenths of patients scored their experiences of care received. Comparisons were made between patients with and without chronic disease.

Results

The sample included 220 general practitioners from both public and private sector. A total of 1964 patients that completed the experience questionnaire and 219 patients that completed the patient values questionnaire were analyzed. Patients overall report a positive experiences with the general practice they visited. Several gaps were identified in particular in terms of wait times for appointments, general practitioner access to patient medical history, delivery of preventative services, patient involvement in decision-making. Patients with chronic disease report better experience than respondents without a chronic condition, however these patient groups report the same values in terms of qualities of the primary care system that are important to them.

Conclusions

Data gathered may be used to improve the quality of primary health care services in Greece through an increased focus on patient-centered approaches. Our study has identified several gaps as well as factors within the primary care health system that patient’s perceive as most important which can be used to prioritize quality improvement activities, especially within the austerity period. Study findings may also have application to other countries with similar context and infrastructure.

Keywords

Primary care Quality Patient-centered care Greece QUALICOPC Cross sectional

Background

Many European countries share the goal of establishing a strong primary health care (PHC) system as part of their health care system [1]. There is good evidence supporting the importance of PHC in reducing healthcare spending and health disparities [13]. Over the past several years, Greece has been actively attempting to improve health care services with a focus on strengthening PHC [4]. The austerity period, which has been in place in Greece for several years, has had a significant impact on the size, structure, quality and effectiveness of health care services [4].

Internationally, patient satisfaction and patient-centered approaches to health care delivery have gained an important place in informing health care reform and quality health care delivery [5, 6]. Meeting the expectations of the population through patient-centered health care delivery is one of the valued indicators of health system functioning [1, 7]. Several studies have demonstrated that a positive relationship between general practitioners (GPs) and their patients is associated with reduced health care spending [8] and there is good evidence to show that the relationship between patients and PHC professionals can be reinforced by improved communication during practice visits [911] The key elements of patient-centered approaches are: eliciting patient perspectives, responding to patient concerns, giving information; partnership building; engaging the patient in participatory decision-making; and developing a follow-up health care plan together [1214].

In Greece, PHC is delivered through a combination of publically funded state health services and by private Family Physicians/GPs. The public service is delivered through Health Centres, which are accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and located primarily in rural areas. GPs provide their services on a fee-for-service basis in privately owned offices [4, 15].

The public PHC services can provide a number of services including diagnostic, curative and preventive health, facilitating multi-disciplinary team of professionals such as GPs, pediatricians, microbiologists, dentists, midwifes, radiologists, and nursing personnel. On the other hand, patients are free to choose whether they will visit a public PHC service or a specialist from the private sector. Greek patients often have unequal access to standard PHC services, depending on factors such as geographical accessibility and ability to pay for a private physician. The PHC system in Greece has reported low performance in several areas of quality-based care [4, 16]. A recently published paper of Schäfer et al. reported on data from the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC), which examined quality indicators as perceived by patients in 34 countries including Greece [17]. Five dimensions of person-focused primary care have been assessed by the QUALICOPC project: accessibility, continuity and coordination, comprehensiveness, patient activation, and doctor–patient communication [1, 18]. The paper clearly highlighted the tail position of the Greek health care system as perceived by patients, in particular in the areas of accessibility, continuity and patient involvement [17]. These results validate the urgency of continued efforts to reform PHC in Greece and it is considered as a high priority for a country that has been seriously damaged by the austerity period.

Motivated by these alarming observations this paper sought to conduct a more in-depth exploration of the quality of PHC services in Greece as assessed by patients and explores aspects of health care delivery that are valued by patients. Comparisons are also made between patients with and without chronic disease as we hypothesize experiences will differ across these patient sub-groups given the acute care orientation of PHC services in Greece. Finally, we reflect on possible solutions that might inform health care reform activities moving forward. The Clinic of Social and Family Medicine at the University of Crete jointly with the Greek Association of General Practitioners (ELEGEIA) were responsible for the implementation of the QUALICOPC project in Greece. Their main responsibilities included the selection of GP practices, the recruitment of GPs serving in all healthcare centres located in all seven health regions of Greece. Additionally they were responsible for the distribution of the questionnaires and data collection, storage, and analysis.

Methods

Setting and design

A cross-sectional survey was conducted of both GPs and a sample of patients from their practice. We aimed to sample one GP from each of the 218 public PHC centers located in the seven health care regions in Greece. A GP-coordinator was identified in each of the health regions to assist with local recruitment activities. The Clinic of Social and Family Medicine, with the assistance of the regional coordinators and ELEGEIA sent invitations to a list of 300 GPs working in the 218 public PHC centres with the aim was to recruit one GP per PHC centre. A total of 203 GPs accepted participation while 15 denied participation, thus 15 (6.9%) PHC centres were not represented in the sample. If more than one GP expressed interest in participation from the same health centre, the first person to respond was included in the sample. Apart from the sample of GPs serving in the public sector, we invited 25 GPs serving in the private sector. They were contacted alphabetically from an available list of 130 GPs eligible serving in the private sector located in the 5th and 7th health regions of Greece and 17 (68%) accepted participation. From each GPs practice a sample of 10 consecutive patients from their practice was surveyed. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients and participant responses remained anonymous. Ethical approval was received from Bioethical Committee of the University General Hospital of Heraklion (number protocol: 7655/7-7-2011).

Data collection

Study data collection activities occurred between February 2011 and November 2012. Patient recruitment took place between 8:00 am and 15:00 pm in order to capture a wide range of service users. A trained field worker over saw data collection activities at the clinic. Field workers invited consecutive patients who had a face-to-face consultation with the GP and who were over the age of 18 years, and able to speak and read Greek were surveyed, until a sample of 10 questionnaires per practice was achieved. Data was collected at the end of the consultation with the GP. All participants completed a informed consent. Nine tenths of participants completed the patient experience questionnaire and one tenth completed the patient values questionnaire. Details of the QUALICOPC study protocol have been published elsewhere [1, 17, 18].

Measures

The QUALICOPC Patient Experiences and Patient Values Questionnaires were used to collect data. The questionnaires were developed by the QUALICOPC Consortium and are based on PHAMEU framework [1]. Patients rated the five dimensions of person-focused primary care: accessibility, continuity and coordination, comprehensiveness, patient activation, and doctor–patient communication [1, 18]. The Patient Experience Questionnaire asked patients to indicate whether they agreed with the statement by selecting ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. The Patient Values Questionnaire asked patients to rank the importance of each of the statements contained in the patient experience survey using a 1–4 scale, 1 (not important) to 4 (very important). Socio-demographic data (age, gender, employment status), presence of chronic disease(s) (‘Do you have a longstanding disease or condition such as high blood pressure, diabetes, depression, asthma or another longstanding condition?’) and overall health status (‘How would you describe your health status in general?’) were collected from all participants. The English version of the questionnaires were translated into Greek using a forth-and back translation procedure.

Statistical analysis

Characteristics of participants were summarized using descriptive statistics. Univariate comparisons were performed for patients with and without chronic disease using Pearson’s chi-squared test for categorical data. Patient responses for the values survey were recoded so that 1 = very important and 0 = all other responses. We choose to focus the analysis on the categorization of values as “very important” due to the ceiling effect that was seen when positive responses (i.e. “important” and “very important”) were combined. Missing data was minimal and was not replaced. For each variable missing values are reported in the tables. All analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 21.

Results

Two-hundred and twenty GPs within the seven health regions agreed to participate in the study. A total of 2220 patients completed study questionnaires (10 per GP practice); however 37 surveys were not legible and were excluded from the analysis. In total 2183 patients were included in the analysis (1964 patients who completed the Patient Experience Questionnaire and 219 patients completed the Patient Values Questionnaire). The primary reason for ineligibility was the inability to read/write in Greek.

Demographic characteristics

Table 1 presents the socio-demographic characteristics of patients sampled. Almost 90% of participants were living with other adults and had children. Close to one third, reported a household income that was below average. Almost, forty-one percent of respondents to the Patient Experience Questionnaire and 53.7% of respondents to the Patient Values Questionnaire reported the presence of a chronic disease.
Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents to Patient Experience and Patient Values questionnaires

Variable

Responders patient experience survey

n = 1964

Responders patient values survey

n = 219

Mean Age, years (SD)

52.7 (±16.5)

51.9 (±14.5)

 

n (%)

n (%)

Sexa

  

 Male

863 (44.1%)

93 (42.5%)

 Female

1093 (55.9%)

126 (57.5%)

Were born in Greece?b

 Yes

1867 (95.4%)

215 (98.2%)

 No

89 (4.6%)

4 (1.8%)

Other adults living in your householdc

 Yes

1729 (88.3%)

195 (89.4%)

 No

229 (11.7%)

23 (10.6%)

Children in your household?d

 Yes

1243 (63.4%)

84 (38.7%)

 No

718 (36.6%)

133 (61.3%)

Years of formal educatione

 0–9 years

721 (37.0%)

54 (25.1%)

 9–12 years

654 (33.6%)

78 (36.3%)

 >12 years

573 (29.4%)

83 (38.6%)

Current employment statusf

 Employed

827 (42.3%)

121 (55.3%)

 Student

89 (4.5%)

10 (4.6%)

 Unemployment

168 (8.6%)

20 (9.1%)

 Retired

590 (30.2%)

49 (22.4%)

 Other

286 (14.7%)

14 (8.7%)

Household incomeg

 Below average

587 (29.9%)

43 (19.6%)

 Around average

1245 (63.5%)

154 (70.3%)

 Above average

128 (6.5%)

22 (10%)

Presence of chronic illnessh

 Yes

792 (40.6%)

117 (53.7%)

 No

1158 (59.4%)

101 (46.3%)

SD standard deviation

Patient Experience Survey: a n = 1956; b n = 1956; c n = 1958; d n = 1961; e n = 1948; f n = 1960; g n = 1960; h n = 1950

Patient Values Survey: a n = 219,; b n = 219; b n = 219; c n = 218; d n = 217; e n = 215; f n = 219; g n = 219; h n = 218

Health status and primary care service use patterns

Tables 2 and 3 present information on the health status of patients and PHC service use patterns for the overall sample and those with and without a chronic illness. Fifty nine percent of participants described their health status as good or very good. As would be expected individuals who did not have a diagnosed chronic disease reported significantly better health status than individuals with a chronic illness. Among patients sampled, 10.8% of patients with a chronic disease reported not having a personal physician compared to 31.9% of patients without a chronic disease. During the past 6 months, one in four participants consulting a GP more than 5 times in the previous 12-months. Among patients with chronic illness, the proportion of patients with 5 or more consults increased to 38% (p < 0.0001). The main reason for PHC consult was for a prescription (44.9%) and the majority of patients seen for prescriptions were patients with chronic illness (61.8%).
Table 2

Participant health status, frequency of GP visit, and reason for current visit overall and by presence of a chronic disease

Variable

Total

n (%)

Patients with chronic disease

n (%)a

Patients without chronic disease

n (%)a

p-value

How would you describe your health status in general:b

   

<0.0001

 Very good

409 (20.9%)

52 (4.5%)

353 (44.9%)

 

 Good

750 (38.4%)

428 (37.1%)

317 (40.3%)

 

 Satisfactory

617 (31.4%)

502 (43.5%)

111 (14.1%)

 

 Poor

178 (9.1%)

171 (14.8%)

6 (0.8%)

 

Do you have your own personal physician who you consult when you are ill?c

   

<0.0001

 Yes

1567 (80.6%)

1022 (89.2%)

536 (68.1%)

 

 No

378 (19.4%)

124 (10.8%)

251 (31.9%)

 

Over the past six months, how often did you visit or consulted a general practitioner?d

   

<0.0001

 Never

446 (22.9%)

108 (9.6%)

337 (46.0%)

 

 Once

405 (20.8%)

181 (16.1%)

221 (30.2%)

 

 2–4 times

545 (28.0%)

409 (36.4%)

129 (17.6%)

 

  ≥ 5 times

475 (24.4%)

427 (38.0%)

45 (6.1%)

 

 Do not know

78 (4.0%)

27 (2.3%)

51 (6.5%)

 

Reason of current visite

 Sick/Unwell

729 (37.3%)

387 (33.6%)

338 (42.9%)

<0.0001

 Medical check-up

422 (21.6%)

262 (22.7%)

258 (20.1%)

0.160

 Prescription

877 (44.9%)

713 (61.8%)

157 (19.9%)

<0.0001

 Referral

216 (11.0%)

140 (12.1%)

75 (9.5%)

0.070

 Health certificate

106 (5.4%)

41 (3.6%)

64 (8.1%)

<0.0001

 Second opinion

128 (6.5%)

77 (6.7%)

50 (6.3%)

0.771

 Other

130 (6.6%)

43 (3.7%)

86 (10.9%)

<0.0001

aBased on 1950 cases for the variable presence of chronic disease

bBased on sample size of 1954; cBased on a sample size of 1945; dBased on a sample size 1949; eBased on a sample size of 1955

Table 3

Participant assessment of GP accessibility according to presence of chronic disease

Variable

Overalla

n (%)

Patients with chronic diseaseb

n (%)

Patients without chronic diseasec

n (%)

p-value

How long does it take to go from your home to the Primary care unit?

   

0.028

  < 20 min

1335 (68.0%)

765 (66.2%)

559 (70.6%)

 

 20–40 min

433 (22.1%)

271 (23.4%)

160 (20.2%)

 

 40–60 min

127 (6.5%)

87 (7.5%)

40 (5.1%)

 

  > 1 h

56 (2.9%)

29 (2.5%)

27 (3.4%)

 

Did you have to make an appointment for your visit to the GP?

   

0.007

 Yes

523 (27.3%)

333 (29.4%)

183 (23.8%)

 

 No

1392 (72.7%)

800 (70.6%)

587 (76.2%)

 

Was it easy to make an appointment?

   

0.117

 Yes

474 (86.2%)

294 (84.2%)

172 (89.1%)

 

 No

76 (13.8%)

55 (15.8%)

21 (10.9%)

 

How many days did you wait for today’s visit?

   

0.546

 None

171 (32.4%)

107 (31.7%)

58 (32.2%)

 

 One day

143 (27.1%)

86 (25.4%)

56 (30.6%)

 

 2–7 days

125 (23.7%)

85 (25.1%)

40 (21.9%)

 

  > 7 days

89 (16.9%)

60 (17.8%)

28 (15.3%)

 

 Don’t know

25 (4.5%)

11 (3.2%)

13 (6.6%)

 

How long did you have to wait to see your doctor when you arrived today?

   

<0.0001

  < 15 min

553 (28.7%)

295 (25.7%)

258 (33.0%)

 

 15–30 min

598 (31.0%)

342 (29.8%)

256 (32.7%)

 

 30–45 min

378 (19.6%)

246 (21.5%)

132 (16.9%)

 

 45–60 min

184 (9.5%)

123 (10.7%)

61 (7.8%)

 

  > 1 h

203 (10.5%)

135 (11.8%)

68 (8.7%)

 

 Don’t know

12 (0.6%)

5 (0.4%)

7 (0.8%)

 

It is difficult to see a GP in the evenings, at night and in the weekend?

   

0.509

 Yes

421 (21.9%)

251 (22.0%)

170 (21.7%)

 

 No

1046 (54.4%)

642 (56.3%)

404 (51.6%)

 

 Don’t know

457 (23.8%)

248 (21.7%)

209 (26.7%)

 

p-values report on significance between t-test comparison by presence of chronic disease

aBased on 1964 cases unless otherwise indicated; bBased on 792 cases unless otherwise indicated; cBased on 1158 cases unless otherwise indicated

Patient experience questionnaire

Tables 3 and 4 present the results regarding participant’s experiences at the GP consultation at which they were surveyed for each of the 5 main dimensions assessed. We review main findings for each dimension below.
Table 4

Participant experience assessment by primary care domain overall and according to presence of chronic disease

Variable

% Overall sample

n = 1964

% Patients with chronic disease

n = 1158

% Patients w/out chronic disease

n = 792

p-value*

Accessibility

 Opening hours are too restricted

28.8

30.8

25.7

0.025

 If I need a home visit I can get one

71.2

73.6

67.4

0.009

 The practice is close to where I live or work

81.5

80.1

83.7

0.048

 I had to wait too long on the phone

11.4

10.7

12.6

0.248

 The doctor did not take sufficient time

83.4

82.5

84.8

0.190

 It was easy to make an appointment

86.2

84.2

89.1

0.117

 Same or next day appointment

59.5

57.1

62.8

0.546

 I am able to see the GP in the evening, at night/weekend

72.8

71.9

70.3

0.509

Continuity and Coordination

 The GP had my medical history available in front of him/her

51.2

59.0

39.5

<0.0001

 The GP knows important information about my medical history

80.4

87.2

69.8

<0.0001

 The GP knows my living conditions

65.4

71.7

55.6

<0.0001

 During the past two years, the GP asked me about all the medications that I was taking

76.6

86.7

60.9

<0.0001

 It is difficult to get a referral to a medical specialist from my GP

10.1

8.9

10.7

0.257

Communication and Patient-Centred Care

 The GP was polite

94.8

95.6

94.2

0.157

 The GP listened carefully to me

92.5

93.1

91.6

0.233

 The GP looked at me when I was talking

88.4

88.2

91.0

0.053

 The GP asked me questions about my health problem

91.9

91.9

91.9

0.992

 I could not really understand what the GP was trying to explain to me

88.4

86.1

91.9

<0.0001

Comprehensiveness

 The doctor asked me about other problems beyond that for which I came

74.3

76.5

71.4

0.011

 The GP is not only addressing my medical problems, but is also able to help with my personal problems and concerns

80.7

85.1

73.8

<0.0001

 During the past 12 months, a GP talked to me about how to stay healthy (diet, smoking, alcohol)

72.6

81.2

60.1

<0.0001

Patient Activation

 The GP included me in the decisions about my treatment

73.5

74.1

72.5

0.440

 After today’s visit, I feel that I am able to deal better with my health problem than before

86.3

86.3

86.2

0.975

aBased on 1950 cases or the variable presence of chronic disease (yes/no)

Accessibility

Most participants live within 20 min of their GPs office. The majority of patients did not book an appointment for their clinic visit with more than 40% of respondents reported waiting more than 30 min to see the GP. Among the 27.3% of participants who reported that they had to schedule an appointment with their GP and most reported the appointment booking to be easy. Most patients felt the GP spent enough time with them. Twenty-two percent reported they were not able to access GPs office in the evening or weekend.

Continuity & coordination

Among patients who reporting having a personal GP, 9.2% were surveyed at an appointment with a different GP from the same practice/centre and 10.3% had a personal GP who was located in a practice other than that from which they were surveyed. Approximately half of patients sampled reported that the GP had their medical history available in front of them, although patients with chronic disease were significantly more likely to report the GP had their medical history available. Seventy-seven per cent of participants reported that within the last 2 years the GP conducted a medication reconciliation and participants with a chronic disease were significantly more likely to report receiving lifestyle advice and reported having their medication history documented compared to individuals without a chronic disease. Half of participants felt they were able to receive a referral to a medical specialist when appropriate via the GP.

Communication & patient-centred care

Almost 95% of participants felt the GP was polite and 93% reported that the GP listened carefully during the physical examination.

Comprehensiveness

Seventy-four percent of participants mentioned that the GP asked them about other problems, beyond that for which they came to clinic to address while 81% reported that the GP was very helpful also with personal problems and concerns. Eighty-one percent of patients with chronic disease reported receiving advice related to staying healthy (diet, smoking, alcohol), this fell to 60% among individuals without a chronic disease (P < 0.0001).

Patient involvement

Eighty-six percent of the participants identified that after the visit with the GP that they felt better able to deal with their health problem than before. However, only 74% of respondents reported that the GP included them in their decisions about treatment.

Patient values questionnaire

Table 5 presents data regarding the proportion of patients who ranked each item as very important for each domain of the Patient Values Questionnaire. Patients identified knowing in advance which doctor they will see for their consultation, that the physician does not cancel their appointment, and that the doctor is prepared for the consultation was of significant importance. Participants reported aspects of the GP encounter that were very important to be that the GP listened to them attentively (68.8%), is calm (59.4%) and treats them as a person and not as medical problem (57.8%). During the consultation, the following factors were ranked as very important: the physician checks with patient to ensure they have understood everything communicated (67.1%) and the physician is respectful during the physical examination and does not interrupt them (46.8%). Patients identified the ability to be honest and to talk in detail with their physician about their health problem as very important. Most patients (64.7%) felt it was very important to be informed by their physician about what to do if something goes wrong with their treatment. There were no significant differences between respondents without a chronic disease and those with chronic disease in terms of values related to primary care. The only exception was that the doctor asking if they had any questions was identified as very important by a larger proportion of respondents without a chronic disease.
Table 5

Patient value survey responses by quality domain – Proportion of participants who ranked as very important

Variable

% Total

n =219

% Without chronic disease

n =102

% Patients with chronic disease

n = 117

p-value

Accessibility

 The practice has extensive opening hours

43.6

41.9

45.5

0.071

 I can get an appointment easily at this practice

47.7

45.3

50.5

0.666

 I know how to get evening, night and weekend services

47.2

50.4

43.6

0.416

 The practice is close to where I live or work

57.8

63.2

51.5

0.053

 I have a short waiting time on the phone when I call this practice

38.1

38.5

37.6

0.322

 The doctor does not give me the feeling to be under time pressure

59.4

58

61.2

0.632

 The doctor offers me his/her telephone or email to contact for further questions

29.4

28.7

29.3

0.923

 I will keep my appointment

34.7

30.9

38.3

0.268

Continuity and Coordination

 The doctor has my medical records at hand

42.1

41.1

46.9

0.144

 The doctor knows important information about my medical background and health issues

57.9

59.0

62.4

0.714

 The doctor knows about my living situation

28.4

27.7

29.2

0.811

 The doctor has prepared for the consultation by reading my medical notes

29.4

29.7

29.3

0.950

 The doctor gives me instructions on what to do when things go wrong

64.7

59.4

69.0

0.142

 I don’t need to tell a receptionist or nurse details about my health problem

21.6

22.2

21.4

0.920

 I inform the doctor how the treatment works out

43.0

40.0

45.1

0.450

 I can see another doctor if I think it is necessary

29.8

29.3

30.5

0.854

Communication and Patient-Centered Care

 The doctor is polite

63.9

59.4

67.5

0.215

 The doctor makes me feel welcome by making eye contact

49.8

47.5

52.1

0.497

 The doctor listens attentively

68.8

69.3

68.1

0.849

 The doctor is aware of my personal, social and cultural background

13.7

13.9

13.7

0.968

 The doctor is not prejudiced because of my age, gender, religion or culture

35.2

34.7

35.9

0.848

 The doctor treats me as a person and not as a medical problem

57.8

52.5

62.1

0.154

 The doctor is respectful during physical examinations and does not interrupt me

46.8

41.6

50.9

0.172

 The doctor takes me seriously

54.7

48.5

59.6

0.103

 The doctor understand me

56.7

51.0

62.1

0.101

 The doctor asks me if I have any questions about my health problems

46.1

38.6

52.2

0.046

 The doctor asks how I prefer to be treated

22.5

20.7

24.5

0.544

 The doctor avoids disturbances of the consultation by telephone calls etc.

22.5

26.7

19.0

0.172

 The people at the reception desk are polite and helpful

36.1

35.7

35.8

0.992

 I understand clearly what the doctor explains

67.1

66.0

67.8

0.776

Comprehensiveness

 The doctor asks about possible other problems besides the one I came in for

37.2

34.0

40.0

0.364

 The doctor gives me additional information about my health problem

20.1

18.8

21.4

0.639

 The doctor informs me about reliable sources of information e.g. websites

7.8

7.9

7.8

0.965

 Psychosocial issues (for example personal worries) can be discussed if needed

32.3

29.3

29.9

0.921

 The doctor gives all test results even if they show abnormalities

49.1

50.5

47.4

0.651

Patient Activation

 The doctor involves me in making decisions about treatment

37.7

34.0

41.2

0.277

 I feel able to cope better with my health problem after the visit

57.1

50.0

62.9

0.056

 I have prepared for the consultation by keeping a symptom diary or preparing questions

15.3

15.0

15.8

0.873

 I tell the doctor what I want to discuss in this consultation

26.1

28.0

23.9

0.495

 I am prepared to ask questions and take notes

15.3

19.0

11.4

0.120

 I am honest and not feel embarrassed to talk about my health problem

48.6

49.0

48.7

0.967

 I am open about my use of other treatments, such as self-medication or alternative

25.1

25.3

24.3

0.878

 I adhere to the agreed treatment plan

37.2

38.0

36.8

0.850

 I can bring a family member/friend to the consultation

18.5

17.8

19.3

0.781

 I inform the doctor how the treatment works out

42.7

45.1

40.0

0.781

p-values report on significance comparison by presence of chronic disease

Table 6 summarizes the top 11 values of the primary care interactions that were identified by respondents as well as the corresponding assessment.
Table 6

Aspects rated very important by the majority of patients and the corresponding patient experience assessment scores

Top 11 values

% Who ranked as “very important”

% Positive patient experience rating

The doctor listens attentively

68.8

92.5

I understand clearly what the doctor explains

67.1

88.4

The doctor gives me instructions on what to do when things go wrong

64.7

-

The doctor is polite

63.9

94.8

The doctor does not give me the feeling to be under time pressure

59.4

83.4

The doctor knows important information about my medical history and health issues

57.9

80.4

The practice is close to where I live or work

57.8

81.5

The doctor treats me as a person and not as a medical problem

57.8

-

I feel able to cope better with my health problem after the visit

57.1

86.3

The doctor understand me

56.7

-

That the doctor takes me seriously

54.7

-

Discussion

Main findings of the study

Over the past several years, Greece has been attempting to reform national health care services with a focus on strengthening PHC delivery in an effort to meet the needs of the population and ensure the efficient use of public resources [4]. As part of these quality improvement efforts several system-level changes have been by the Greek government including the establishment of the National Organization for Healthcare Provision as a unified central healthcare insurer, the establishment of an electronic prescribing system, and the creation of a Primary Healthcare Network [4, 19]. Progress in terms of achieving this goal has however received significant criticism [4, 19, 20]. A 2013 report on the state of primary care in Greece reported that Greece lacks key characteristics of strong primary care and should be a priority of health care reform activities moving forward [4].

The QUALICOPC project provided a framework to study patient centeredness at the country level, by exploring to patient’s experiences and expectations as it relates to primary care health delivery [1, 17, 18] and by comparing responses among patient with and without chronic disease to determine if these groups of patients differ in terms of experience and values. Our study found, that overall most patients surveyed reported good rates of satisfaction with their experience in the health care system. This is a promising finding given that our study was conducted during the austerity period in Greece, which has had significant impact on funding for health care services and personnel. However, several areas for improvement were also identified, including issues of accessibility, patient-centeredness, patient involvement and continuity of care, which we discuss here.

Factors which were ranked as very important by the majority of study participants are summarized in Table 7. In terms of accessibility, patients have identified the distance of PHC offices from their home or work, and not feeling time pressure from the physician as being highly valued. Both of these items were ranked by more than 80% of respondents as being met. While not ranked as the most valued aspects of care by patients, long wait-times are being reported on the day of their visit to clinic, by most patients. In Greece most GPs do not typically book appointments, which may explain the long office wait times reported by patients in the present evaluation [4]. Wait times and proximity of primary care centres are quality indicators [16, 21]. The challenges documented in present study in terms of wait times and access to primary care in non-urban areas have been previously identified in formal assessment of the primary care system in Greece and are important areas for quality improvement [4]. Importantly, while not assessed directly in the present study, patient out of pocket payments have been shown to limit access to primary health care services, a pattern which would be further increased by the economic crisis in Greece [4, 15].
Table 7

Factors related to primary health care delivery that were ranked as most valued by patients surveyed

More than half of participants also indicated the following as very important:

• The doctor listens attentively

• I understand clearly what the doctor explains

• The doctor gives me instructions on what to do when things go wrong

• The doctor is polite

• The doctor does not give me the feeling to be under time pressure

• The doctor knows important information about my medical history and health issues

• The practice is close to where I live or work

• The doctor treats me as a person and not as a medical problem

• I feel able to cope better with my health problem after the visit

• The doctor understand me

• That the doctor takes me seriously

• That the doctor know when to refer me to a medical specialist

• That the doctor makes me feel welcome by making eye contact

• That the doctor is respectful during physical examinations and does not interrupt me

• That the doctor asks me if I have any questions

• That the doctor gives all test results even if they show abnormalities

• That I know which doctor will I see

• That I am honest and not feel embarrassed to talk about my health problem

• That I know which doctor will I see

• That the doctor asks me if I have any questions

Primary care providers scored well in many aspects related to the communication and patient-centered care domain. In terms of areas for improvement, providers had moderate scores in the assessment of the patient’s living conditions, and discussing problems beyond the reason for the current visit. These two factors were scored significantly lower by patients who did not have a chronic disease as compared to individuals with chronic conditions. Additionally significantly fewer respondents with a chronic disease indicated that the GP assisted in addition to addressing the patients’ health problems with personal problems and concerns. The focus on urgent care issues and lack of comprehensive approach to family or community-based health care delivery is highlighted by this data - an issue that has been identified by other groups [4, 16, 21].

Patient-involvement in decision making about their treatment plan was scored moderately. Interestingly this variable did not differ between patients with and without a chronic disease. Approximately 15% of patients left the GPs office not feeling better prepared to deal with their medical condition, the reasons for this should be examined as an area for future research.

Several areas of improvement were identified in terms of the continuity of care received by patients. Importantly, only half of patient’s surveyed reported the GP had their medical history available in front of them. Availability of medical history records was 60% among patients with chronic disease and 40% among individuals who did not have a chronic disease. It is possible that this finding is related to the lack of an effective appointment booking system as was the lack of a comprehensive electronic medical records system [4]. Although certain efforts have been made in the recent years, primary care physicians currently only have electronic access to a record of patient’s prescriptions. Respondents with a chronic disease were significantly more likely to report receiving advice related to staying healthy (diet, smoking, alcohol), compared to individuals without a chronic disease (81% vs. 60%; p < 0.0001). All variables related to continuity and coordination were scored significantly lower among patients without a chronic condition, when compared to individuals with chronic disease.

Data from the present study is consistent with previous reports regarding the weaknesses of PHC system in Greece including the lack of integration across the health care system, limited use of multidisciplinary teams, poor coordination and continuity of care, as well as, a lack of focus on disease prevention and health promotion [4, 16, 2225]. Using the quality standards set out by the QUALICOPC study group, Greece has scored low across all domains assessed with the exception of the continuity domain where a moderate ranking was received [17].

Implications to practice and policy

Data gathered will assist with documenting the patient perspective and may be used to improve the quality of PHC services in Greece through an increased focus on patient-centered approaches especially in a period where a primary care reform is presently being examined by the current government and Greece struggles to develop a high quality system to respond to the population health needs. Study findings may also have application to other national health care systems and policy in countries with similar context and infrastructure.

Countries that have focused on strengthening PHC have emphasized the importance of patient-centered practices [17]. Internationally, quality improvement efforts in the primary care setting have emphasized issues such as patients with multiple co-morbidities, integrated primary care delivery, and workforce and technology (e.g. e-Health) [16, 2628]. Studies have shown positive correlations between the patient-centered approach and patient experiences such as patient satisfaction [12, 29], patient recall of the content of the health care services [30], patient adherence [30], patient health outcomes [8, 12, 31, 32], health care utilization [8, 30] and provider satisfaction [30]. The financial crisis in Greece necessitates a closer look at proven models, such as the patient-centered model of care, for improving population health, reducing inequalities, and spending. This is a fertile area for GPs and the primary care health care system to invest energy and international experience and collaborations can serve to guide these efforts [33].

Training programs, which engage GP’s in more patient-centered communication have been shown by to lead to an increased likelihood that the interaction would be more closely aligned with the patient’s psychosocial needs and improve patient’s compliance and outcomes [30]. Given this evidence, we would recommend government as well as medical schools within Greece look at strengthening the emphasis on patient-centered care within medical school curricula and continuing medical education programs. A recommendation that was brought forward in a recent report examining primary health care in Europe [16, 21, 34].

Our study identified a significant gap in primary care provider’s access to patient medical history, a factor, which was highly valued by patients surveyed. These results suggest that policy-makers should continue efforts to improve PHC services by adopting the Electronic health Record (EHR), which is expected to improve all six dimensions of quality care identified by the Institute of Medicine (safety, timeliness, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and patient-centeredness) [35]. Unfortunately, at present, only the prescription part of the EHR is operational and there is feedback from providers that this tool is time consuming. International experience based on episode of care and ICPC-2 classification could be used to inform quality improvement activities related to the introduction of EHRs in Greece [36, 37].

Our study also documented several gaps in care for individuals who did not have a diagnosed chronic condition, in particular in terms of comprehensiveness of care. There were several important differences documented between respondents without a chronic disease and those with a chronic condition in terms of their experience with the primary care system. This data may highlight a lack of attention to preventative care within the national health care system in Greece and is consistent with previous reports [4, 16, 38]. The financial constraints has meant several areas of international importance in the field of primary care are not on the agendas of GPs in Greece including frailty, chronic disease prevention, self-management, and multi-morbidity [33]. Given the high rates of chronic disease documented in Greece, the delay in diagnosis of chronic diseases such as COPD and lung cancer, and increased focus on preventative medicine and chronic disease-management within the primary care system is recommended [39]. Highly cost-effective interventions are available and have been tested in other countries, as well as in Greece, which should be implemented as part of the national primary care system [40]. Likewise, the role of primary care and public health nurses must be urgently discussed and there is evidence that the capacity of nurses serving in the Greek primary care is underutilized [4143]. Finally, the development of quality standards in PHC services which are informed by patient-centered models of care are particularly important during the present austerity period in Greece.

Limitations

The present study has some methodological limitations that should be understood when interpreting findings. First the recruitment of GP’s was not via random selection but rather used a local champion who assisted with GP recruitment in each of the seven health regions in Greece and as such may not necessarily be representative of all GPs in Greece. Our sample primarily represented the views of GPs who serve in the public sector. The number of private practice GPs included in the study was small (n = 17), and as such was not sufficiently representative of all private practices in Greece, thus we are not certain to what extent the views of GPs serving in the private sector differ. Given the study required patients to read and/or write in Greek our findings do not represent this patient population. The study results may be subject to observer bias, which may have resulted in providers increasing their performance during the period in which survey data was collected. Additionally, the nature of the present survey required that patients be able to read in Greek and as such is not representative of patient’s who are unable to read and may in particular not be representative of lower income individuals, individuals with disabilities, and those whose mother tongue is something other than Greek. Furthermore, although the sample size of the study is relatively large, there is no data available regarding the non-responding patients thus inducing a potential source of selection bias. The present study used a previously validated tool to assess patient-valued and experiences but may not assess all aspects of care that are valued by patients. Finally, as has been reported by the QUALICOPC authors previously patient values may be a reflection of their experience to date in the primary health care system. For example in low performing health care system patients may have lower expectations about health care delivery and rank importance differently. As such information from patient value assessments should be considered one but not the only source of information for informing quality improvement activities [17].

Conclusions

In summary, our study presents data about patient’s experiences and values across the 5 domains of primary health care delivery: Accessibility, Continuity & Coordination, Communication & Patient-Centred Care, Patient Activation, Comprehensiveness. A positive finding of the survey is that most of the patients (especially patients with chronic disease, who visit primary care unit more regularly) surveyed report that their health needs are being met. Several areas for quality improvement related in particular to access, comprehensiveness, and prevention have been identified which can be used to inform quality improvement activities to strengthen primary care delivery in Greece during a period where national health care reform is under discussion.

Abbreviations

GP: 

General practitioner

ELEGEIA: 

Greek Association of General Practitioners

PHC: 

Primary Health Care

NIVEL: 

Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The QUALICOPC project is carried out by an international network of partner institutes and coordinated by Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL). This study was furthermore conducted in collaboration with the University of Crete and the Greek Association of General Practitioners (ELEGEIA).

The Greek QUALICOPC team: Ioannis Dakoronias, MD. Health Centre of Markopoulo, Sah Hamid Alexandros, MD. Health Centre of Thera, Aristofanes Paganas, MD. Health Centre of Litochoro, Dimitrios Ellinas, MD. Health Centre of Prinou, Vesela Polyzou, MD. Health Centre of Trikala, Ioannis Lentzas, MD. Health Centre of Simmopoulo.

Funding

The QUALICOPC study was funded by the European Commission (FP7/2007–2013).

Availability of data and materials

Data and materials for this study are available from the authors upon reasonable request. Due to restrictions stated in our ethical approvals data are not available on public data repositories.

Authors’ contributions

WB and WS are the leads for the QUALICOPC study and designed the overall study for this multi-national study. GD was the local project coordinator and in charge of data collection and P-BM assisted in recruitment and data collection activities. SP and AB performed statistical analysis and produced all tables. CL, SP, CT, AB and GD interpreted the data and prepared the manuscript. All authors commented on the draft and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was received from Bioethical Committee of the University General Hospital of Heraklion (number protocol: 7655/7-7-2011). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients and participant responses remained anonymous.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete
(2)
Division of Prevention and Rehabilitation, University of Ottawa Heart Institute
(3)
The Greek Association of General Practitioners (ELEGEIA)
(4)
Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL)

References

  1. Schafer WL, Boerma WG, Kringos DS, De Maeseneer J, Gress S, Heinemann S, Rotar-Pavlic D, Seghieri C, Svab I, Van den Berg MJ, Vainieri M, Westert GP, Willems S, Groenewegen PP. QUALICOPC, a multi-country study evaluating quality, costs and equity in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:115-2296-12-115.Google Scholar
  2. Pullicino G, Sciortino P, Calleja N, Schafer W, Boerma W, Groenewegen P. Comparison of patients’ experiences in public and private primary care clinics in Malta. Eur J Public Health. 2015;25(3):399–401.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Delnoij D, Van Merode G, Paulus A, Groenewegen P. Does general practitioner gatekeeping curb health care expenditure? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000;5(1):22–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Groenewegen PP, Jurgutis A. A future for primary care for the Greek population. Qual Prim Care. 2013;21(6):369–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bleich SN, Ozaltin E, Murray CK. How does satisfaction with the health-care system relate to patient experience? Bull World Health Organ. 2009;87(4):271–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis K, Schoenbaum SC, Audet AM. A 2020 vision of patient-centered primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(10):953–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005;83(3):457–502.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Friedberg MW, Hussey PS, Schneider EC. Primary care: a critical review of the evidence on quality and costs of health care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(5):766–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Stewart M. Continuity, care, and commitment: the course of patient-clinician relationships. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(5):388–90.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Helitzer DL, Lanoue M, Wilson B, de Hernandez BU, Warner T, Roter D. A randomized controlled trial of communication training with primary care providers to improve patient-centeredness and health risk communication. Patient Educ Couns. 2011;82(1):21–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bodenheimer T, Lorig K, Holman H, Grumbach K. Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care. JAMA. 2002;288(19):2469–75.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Taylor K. Paternalism, participation and partnership - the evolution of patient centeredness in the consultation. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(2):150–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Mettler JA, Marshall AA, Van Egeren LF, Stoffelmayr BE, Osborn GG, Shebroe V. A strategy for improving patient satisfaction by the intensive training of residents in psychosocial medicine: a controlled, randomized study. Acad Med. 1995;70(8):729–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Ong LM, de Haes JC, Hoos AM, Lammes FB. Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40(7):903–18.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Souliotis K, Golna C, Tountas Y, Siskou O, Kaitelidou D, Liaropoulos L. Informal payments in the Greek health sector amid the financial crisis: old habits die last...Eur J Health Econ. 2016;17(2):159–70. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-015-0666-0.
  16. Kringos DS, Boerma W, van der Zee J, Groenewegen P. Europe’s strong primary care systems are linked to better population health but also to higher health spending. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(4):686–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Schafer WL, Boerma WG, Murante AM, Sixma HJ, Schellevis FG, Groenewegen PP. Assessing the potential for improvement of primary care in 34 countries: a cross-sectional survey. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93(3):161–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Schafer WL, Boerma WG, Kringos DS, De Ryck E, Gress S, Heinemann S, Murante AM, Rotar-Pavlic D, Schellevis FG, Seghieri C, Van den Berg MJ, Westert GP, Willems S, Groenewegen PP. Measures of quality, costs and equity in primary health care instruments developed to analyse and compare primary care in 35 countries. Qual Prim Care. 2013;21(2):67–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Karakolias S.E. PNM. The newly established Unified Healthcare Fund (EOPYY): Current situation and proposed structural changes, towards an upgraded,odel of primary health care, in Greece. Health. 2014;6:809–821.Google Scholar
  20. Polyzos N, Karakolias S, Dikeos C, Theodorou M, Kastanioti C, Mama K, Polizoidis P, Skamnakis C, Tsairidis C, Thireos E. The introduction of Greek Central Health Fund: Has the reform met its goal in the sector of Primary Health Care or is there a new model needed? BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:583-014-0583-4.Google Scholar
  21. Kringos D, Boerma W, Hutchinson A, Saltman R. Building Primary Care in a Changing Europe. 2015.Google Scholar
  22. Lionis C, Petelos E. The impact of the financial crisis on the quality of care in primary care: an issue that requires prompt attention. Qual Prim Care. 2013;21(5):269–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Brotons C. Control of cardiovascular risk factors in primary healthcare: do we control the factors or the risk? Med Clin (Barc). 2005;124(11):415–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsiligianni I, Anastasiou F, Antonopoulou M, Chliveros K, Dimitrakopoulos S, Duijker G, Kounalakis D, Makri K, Petraki C, Prokopiadou D, Stefanaki I, Symvoulakis E, Tsakountakis N, Vasilopoulos T, Vittorakis C, Lionis C, Cretan Practice based Primary Care Research Network ‘G. Lambrakis’, Clinic of Social and Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Crete. Greek rural GPs’ opinions on how financial crisis influences health, quality of care and health equity. Rural Remote Health. 2013;13(2):2528.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lionis C. Is there any room for General Practice in Greece? A proposal to scientific and academic stakeholders. Hippokratia. 2014;18(4):383.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Jackson GL, Powers BJ, Chatterjee R, Bettger JP, Kemper AR, Hasselblad V, Dolor RJ, Irvine RJ, Heidenfelder BL, Kendrick AS, Gray R, Williams JW. Improving patient care. The patient centered medical home. A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):169–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Brown L, Oliver-Baxte J, Bywood P. International trends and initiatives in primary health care… 2013;RESEARCH ROUNDup Issue 32.Google Scholar
  28. World Health Organization. Facts and figures: Trends in Primary Care..Retrieved 4 July 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Saha S, Beach MC, Cooper LA. Patient centeredness, cultural competence and healthcare quality. J Natl Med Assoc. 2008;100(11):1275–85.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Lionis C, Symvoulakis EK, Vardavas CI. Implementing family practice research in countries with limited resources: a stepwise model experienced in Crete. Greece Fam Pract. 2010;27(1):48–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Frederikson LG. Exploring information-exchange in consultation: the patients’ view of performance and outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 1995;25(3):237–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Little P, Everitt H, Williamson I, Warner G, Moore M, Gould C, Ferrier K, Payne S. Preferences of patients for patient centred approach to consultation in primary care: observational study. BMJ. 2001;322(7284):468–72.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Lionis C. Financial crisis and primary health care in Greece; is it time for family medicine? Fam Med & Prim Care Rev. 2015;17(3):225–7.Google Scholar
  34. Kringos D, Boerma W, Bourgueil Y, Cartier T, Dedeu T, Hasvold T, Hutchinson A, Lember M, Oleszczyk M, Rotar Pavlic D, Svab I, Tedeschi P, Wilm S, Wilson A, Windak A, Van der Zee J, Groenewegen P. The strength of primary care in Europe: an international comparative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63(616):e742–50.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Fleming NS, Herrin J, Roberts W, Couch C, Ballard DJ. Patient-centeredness and timeliness in a primary care network: baseline analysis and power assessment for detection of the effects of an electronic health record. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2006;19(4):314–9.Google Scholar
  36. Kounalakis DK, Lionis C, Okkes I, Lamberts H. Developing an appropriate EPR system for the Greek primary care setting. J Med Syst. 2003;27(3):239–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Minas M, Koukosias N, Zintzaras E, Kostikas K, Gourgoulianis KI. Prevalence of chronic diseases and morbidity in primary health care in central Greece: an epidemiological study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:252-6963-10-252.Google Scholar
  38. Brotons C, Bjorkelund C, Bulc M, Ciurana R, Godycki-Cwirko M, Jurgova E, Kloppe P, Lionis C, Mierzecki A, Pineiro R, Pullerits L, Sammut MR, Sheehan M, Tataradze R, Thireos EA, Vuchak J. EUROPREV network. Prevention and health promotion in clinical practice: the views of general practitioners in Europe. Prev Med. 2005;40(5):595–601.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Busse R, Blumel M, Scheller-Kreinsen D, Zentner A. Tackling chronic disease in Europe, observatory study, vol. 20. 2010.Google Scholar
  40. Franco OH, der Kinderen AJ, De Laet C, Peeters A, Bonneux L. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: cost-effectiveness comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(1):71–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Markaki A, Alegakis A, Antonakis N. Kalokerinou-Anagnostopoulou A, Lionis C. Exploring training needs of nursing staff in rural Cretan primary care settings. Appl Nurs Res. 2009;22(2):138–43. discussion 144–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Lionis C, Symvoulakis EK, Markaki A, Vardavas C, Papadakaki M, Daniilidou N, Souliotis K, Kyriopoulos I. Integrated primary health care in Greece, a missing issue in the current health policy agenda: a systematic review. Int J Integr Care. 2009;9:e88.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Markaki A, Antonakis N, Philalithis A, Lionis C. Primary health care nursing staff in Crete: an emerging profile. Int Nurs Rev. 2006;53(1):16–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017