Insights into the proportion of consultations for musculoskeletal disorders in Dutch general practice: a register-based retrospective cohort study

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: General practice care is facing increasing pressure due to a sustained rise in healthcare utilization, partly driven by population ageing and the growing prevalence of chronic conditions, such as musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). Existing evidence reports wide variation in the proportion of GP consultations related to MSDs, while data specific to Dutch primary care remain scarce. The purpose of the study is to estimate the proportion of consultations for MSDs in Dutch general practice, stratified by age categories, sex, and anatomical region. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from the Integrated Primary Care Information database, comprising routinely collected electronic health records of over 2.5 million patients. The study included individuals of all ages between 2017 and 2023. The proportion of consultations attributed to each International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) chapter was determined, with MSDs identified using ICPC L chapter codes. RESULTS: Across the study period, annual consultations ranged from 7.5 to 9.3 million. MSDs accounted for 11.3-12.6% of all consultations, representing the leading reason for consultation in Dutch general practice. Lower limb disorders were most frequent (31.0 -33.1%), followed by upper limb (17,9 - 20,3%) and back (21,3 - 22,9%) disorders. Females accounted for approximately 60% of MSD consultations, with the highest proportions observed among individuals aged 55-64 years (18.6-19.0%) and ≥75 years (17.6-20.3%). CONCLUSIONS: MSDs is the overall leading contributor to consultation volume in Dutch general practice, particularly among females and older adults. As population ageing continues, MSD-related consultations are likely to increase further, underscoring the need for efficient workforce planning and sustainable models of GP care delivery.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.