Andersen, Camilla AakjaerJensen, Martin Bach BToftegaard, Berit SkjodebergVedsted, PeterHarris, MichaelAubin-Auger, IsabelleAzuri, JosephBrekke, MatteBuczkowski, KrzysztofBuono, NicolaCostiug, EmilianaDinant, Geert-JanEsteva Cantó, MagdalenaForeva, GerganaBabic, Svjetlana GasparovicHoffman, RobertJakob, EvaKoskela, TuomasMarzo-Castillejo, MerceMurchie, PeterNeves, Ana LuisaPetek, DavorinaSter, Marija PetekSawicka-Powierza, JolantaSchneider, AntoniusSmyrnakis, EmmanouilStreit, SvenThulesius, HansWeltermann, BirgittaOrenas Res Grp2024-09-102024-09-102019-09Andersen CA, Bach B Jensen M, Toftegaard BS, Vedsted P, Harris M, Aubin-Auger I, et al. Primary care physicians' access to in-house ultrasound examinations across Europe: a questionnaire study. BMJ Open. 2019 Sep;9(9):e030958.2044-6055http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13003/17143https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/22670Objective: The overall objective of this study was to examine the differences in ultrasound availability in primary care across Europe. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting Primary care. Participants Primary care physicians (PCPs). Primary and secondary outcomes measures The primary aim was to describe the variation in in-house primary care ultrasonography availability across Europe using descriptive statistics. The secondary aim was to explore associations between in-house ultrasonography availability and the characteristics of PCPs and their clinics using a mixed-effects logistic regression model. Results We collected data from 20 European countries. A total of 2086 PCPs participated, varying from 59 to 446 PCPs per country. The median response rate per country was 24.8%. The median (minimum-maximum) percentage of PCPs across Europe with access to in-house abdominal ultrasonography was 15.3% (0.0%-98.1%) and 12.1% (0.0%-30.8%) had access to in-house pelvic ultrasonography with large variations between countries. We found associations between in-house abdominal ultrasonography availability and larger clinics (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.9) and clinics with medical doctors specialised in areas, which traditionally use ultrasonography (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.8). Corresponding associations were found between in-house pelvic ultrasonography availability and larger clinics (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.7) and clinics with medical doctors specialised in areas, which traditionally use ultrasonography (OR 3.0, 95% CI 1.8 to 5.1). Additionally, we found a negative association between urban clinics and in-house pelvic ultrasound availability (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.9). Conclusions: Across Europe, there is a large variation in PCPs' access to in-house ultrasonography and organisational aspects of primary care seem to determine this variation. If evidence continues to support ultrasonography as a front-line point-of-care test, implementation strategies for increasing its availability in primary care are needed. Future research should focus on facilitators and barriers that may affect the implementation process.enghttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Organisation of health servicesPrimary careDiagnostic radiologyUltrasoundMaleEuropeFemaleHumansUltrasonographyPrimary Health CarePhysicians, Primary CareCross-Sectional Studiesresearch articleAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International3157557699e03095810.1136/bmjopen-2019-030958BMJ Openopen accessUltrasonografíaEstudios TransversalesHumanosFemeninoEncuestas y CuestionariosEuropa (Continente)Atención Primaria de SaludMédicos de Atención PrimariaMasculino2-s2.0-85072848427497787600329L629500311