Diagnostic methods and written advice for acute otitis media in primary health care

Abstract

AbstractBackground Otomicroscopy and pneumatic methods are superior to otoscopy alone in diagnosing acute otitis media (AOM). There is a lack of knowledge regarding the use of different diagnostic methods for AOM in primary health care in Sweden and Norway.Methods This cross-sectional study included a questionnaire completed by general practitioners (GPs) and specialist trainees (STs/residents/registrars) working in primary care in Sweden and Norway. Multivariable binary logistic regressions were performed to evaluate the use of diagnostic methods and written advice adjusted for educational level, sex and country.Results Otoscopy was the most frequently used method. Sweden had greater access to the more accurate diagnostic methods. In Norway, the following methods were used to a lesser extent: pneumatic otoscopy, adjusted OR 0.15 (95% CI 0.10–0.23; p < .001), otomicroscopy, adjusted OR 0.013 (95% CI 0.070–0.027; p < .001), pneumatic otomicroscopy, adjusted OR 0.028 (95% CI 0.010–0.078; p < .001) and tympanometry, adjusted OR 0.31 (95% CI 0.21–0.45; p < .001). Written advice was used to a greater extent in Norway, adjusted OR 4.5 (95% CI 3.1–6.7; p < .001). The STs used pneumatic otoscopy and pneumatic otomicroscopy to a lesser extent, adjusted OR 0.65 (95% CI 0.45–0.93; p = .019) and 0.63 (95% CI 0.43–0.92; p = .016).Conclusions Swedish physicians both used and had greater access to the significantly better diagnostic methods compared with Norwegian physicians while the opposite applied to the use of written information. The GPs used pneumatic otoscopy and pneumatic otomicroscopy to a greater extent than STs. Compared with 2012, the Swedish physicians now more frequently used pneumatic otoscopy.

Keywords

• Acute otitis media
• AOM
• general practice
• primary care
• diagnostic methods