Search

Background: The clinical general practitioner (GP) workforce is decreasing. Many studies have analysed the negative aspects of the profession but, few examine the positive aspects and job satisfaction. A European collaborative group including 8 participating countries recently conducted a qualitative study to analyse the positive factors and found 31 job satisfaction factors.Objectives: To determine which of these 31 factors are important and applicable to future policies to improve family medicine attractiveness, recruitment, and retention in France.Method: The Delphi consensus method was chosen. Two Delphi rounds were conducted in March-April 2017 and retained satisfaction factors with at least 70% of scores ≥7. The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) was used to rank these retained factors. Participants assigned 5 points to the factor they considered most important, 3 points to the second, and 1 point to the third. Factors receiving at least 5% (10 points) of the total points (198 points) were included in the final list. The expert panel included GPs and non-GPs.Results: Twenty-nine experts began the procedure and 22 completed it. Thirty factors were retained after the 2 Delphi rounds. The NGT resulted in 8 factors: (i) Engage in family medicine to take care of the patients; (ii) Care coordination, patient advocacy; (iii) Flexibility in work; (iv) Trying to be a person-centred doctor; (v) Involvement in healthcare organization; (vi) Benefiting from a well-managed practice; (vii) Being a teacher, a trainer; (viii) Efficient professional collaboration.Conclusion: These 8 job satisfaction factors are important to consider and apply to future policy development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Accurate prediction of a person's risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is vital to initiate appropriate intervention. The non-laboratory INTERHEART risk score (NL-IHRS) is among the tools to estimate future risk of CVD. However, measurement disparities of the tool across contexts are not well documented. Thus, we investigated variation in NL-IHRS and components in selected sub-Saharan African and European countries. Methods and results: We used data from a multi-country study involving 9309 participants, i.e. 4941 in Europe, 3371 in South Africa, and 997 in Uganda. Disparities in total NL-IHRS score, specific subcomponents, subcategories, and their contribution to the total score were investigated. The variation in the adjusted total and component scores was compared across contexts using analysis of variance. The adjusted mean NL-IHRS was higher in South Africa (10.2) and Europe (10.0) compared to Uganda (8.2), and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The prevalence and per cent contribution of diabetes mellitus and high blood pressure were lowest in Uganda. Score contribution of non-modifiable factors was lower in Uganda and South Africa, entailing 11.5% and 8.0% of the total score, respectively. Contribution of behavioural factors to the total score was highest in both sub-Saharan African countries. In particular, adjusted scores related to unhealthy dietary patterns were highest in South Africa (3.21) compared to Uganda (1.66) and Europe (1.09). Whereas, contribution of metabolic factors was highest in Europe (30.6%) compared with Uganda (20.8%) and South Africa (22.6%). Conclusion: The total risk score, subcomponents, categories, and their contribution to total score greatly vary across contexts, which could be due to disparities in risk burden and/or self-reporting bias in resource-limited settings. Therefore, primary preventive initiatives should identify risk factor burden across contexts and intervention activities need to be customized accordingly. Furthermore, contextualizing the risk assessment tool and evaluating its usefulness in different settings are recommended. Graphical Abstract [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quality of care remains a priority issue and is correlated with patient experience. Measuring multidimensional patient primary care experiences in multiprofessional clinics requires a robust instrument. Although many exist, little is known about their quality.Objective: To identify patient perception instruments in multiprofessional primary care and evaluate their quality.Methods: Systematic review using Medline, Pascal, PsycINFO, Google Scholar, Cochrane, Scopus, and CAIRN. Eligible articles developed, evaluated, or validated 1 or more self-assessment instruments. The instruments had to measure primary care delivery, patient primary care experiences and assess at least 3 quality-of-care dimensions. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to assess methodological quality of included studies. Instrument measurement properties were appraised using 3 possible quality scores. Data were combined to provide best-evidence synthesis based on the number of studies, their methodological quality, measurement property appraisal, and result consistency. Subscales used to capture patient primary care experiences were extracted and grouped into the 9 Institute of Medicine dimensions.Results: Twenty-nine articles were found. The included instruments captured many subscales illustrating the diverse conceptualization of patient primary care experiences. No included instrument demonstrated adequate validity and the lack of scientific methodology for assessing reliability made interpreting validity questionable. No study evaluated instrument responsiveness.Conclusion: Numerous patient self-assessment instruments were identified capturing a wide range of patient experiences, but their measurement properties were weak. Research is required to develop and validate a generic instrument for assessing quality of multiprofessional primary care.Trial Registration: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. GPs are daily confronted with mental disorders and psychosomatic problems. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ), measuring distress, depression, anxiety and somatization, was purposively developed for primary care. It has been translated into 12 languages and is commonly used in several countries. It was translated into French in 2008, by forward and backward translation, but it has not been validated for a primary care population. Aim. This study aimed to establish whether the French 4DSQ measured the same constructs in the same way as the original Dutch 4DSQ. Method. Two samples of French general practice patients were recruited during routine care to obtain as much variability as possible. One sample included consecutive patients, from the waiting room of rural GPs, over a period of 2 weeks and the other sample included patients with suspected psychological problems or unexplained symptoms. This population was compared to a matched Dutch sample using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and differential item functioning (DIF) analysis. Results. A total of 231 patients, from 15 French GPs, completed the questionnaire (Dutch reference group: 231). Mean age was 42.9 years (Dutch: 42.1); females numbered 71% in both samples. The multigroup CFA assessed configural invariance of one-factor models per 4DSQ scale. Thirteen of the total of 50 items in the 4DSQ, in three scales, were detected with DIF. However, DIF did not impact on the scale scores. Conclusion. French 4DSQ scales have the same latent structures and measure the same traits as the original Dutch 4DSQ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]