Organized cervical cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of sending invitation letters.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of implementing two modalities of organized Cervical Cancer Screening (CCS) program on screening uptake after a six-month delay. METHODS: A three-armed cluster randomized control trial was conducted in France between January 8 and July 2, 2021, involving148 510 women aged 40 to 65 and 1070 general practitioners. In the Optimized screening group, an invitation letter was posted to non-adherent women, and general practitioners were sent a list of their non-adherent patients. In the Organized screening group, an invitation letter was posted to non-adherent women. In the Usual care group, no invitation was sent. The endpoint was cervical cancer screening uptake after a six months period a) among all eligible women (primary endpoint); and b) among initially non-adherent women (post-hoc analysis). Statistical analysis was based on a logistic mixed model that compared between-group percentages of adherent women. A hierarchical comparison successively tested differences between the three arms (alpha 5 % risk). RESULTS: Among all 148,510 eligible women, screening uptake was 63.6 % (31,731/49910) in the Optimized screening group vs 61.8 % (30,210/48847) in the Usual care group (OR [IC95 %] = 1.05[0.93; 1.18]). Among the 64,370 initially non-adherent women, screening uptake was 17.9 % (3955/22134) in the Optimized screening group vs 11.6 % (5321/20995) in the Usual care group (OR [IC95 %] = 1.70[1.56;1.86]). There was no significant difference between Optimized and Organized screening groups (17.2 % vs 17.9 %; OR [IC95 %] = 1.02[0.94; 1.11]). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an organized screening based on an invitation letter resulted in a modest increase in participation among non-adherent women six months later.

Early diagnosis of melanoma: a randomized trial assessing the impact of the transmission of photographs taken with a smartphone from the general practitioner to the dermatologist on the time to dermatological consultation.

BACKGROUND: Difficulty obtaining a dermatological consultation is an obstacle to the early diagnosis of melanoma. On the one hand, patients survival depends on the lesion thickness at the time of diagnosis. On the other hand, dermatologists treat many patients with benign lesions. Optimizing patient care pathways is a major concern. The aim of the present study was to assess whether the e-mail transmission of photographs of suspected melanoma lesions between general practitioners (GPs) and dermatologists reduces the time to dermatological consultation for patients whose suspicious skin lesions ultimately require resection. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled study in primary care involving 51 French GPs between April 2017 and August 2019. A total of 250 patients referred to a dermatologist for a suspected melanoma lesion were included GPs were randomized to either the smartphone arm or the usual care arm. In the smartphone arm, the GPs referred patients to the dermatologist by sending 2 photographs of the suspicious lesion using their smartphone. The dermatologist then had to set up an appointment at an appropriate time. In the usual care arm, GPs referred patients to a dermatologist according to their usual practice. The primary outcome was the time to dermatological consultation for patients whose lesion ultimately required resection. RESULTS: 57 GPs volunteered were randomized (27 to the smartphone arm, and 30 to the usual care arm). A total of 125 patients were included in each arm (mean age: 49.8 years; 53% women) and followed 8 months. Twenty-three dermatologists participated in the study. The time to dermatological consultation for patients whose suspicious skin lesion required resection was 56.5 days in the smartphone arm and 63.7 days in the usual care arm (mean adjusted time reduction: -18.5 days, 95% CI [-74.1;23.5], p = .53). CONCLUSIONS: The e-mail transmission of photographs from GPs to dermatologists did not improve the dermatological management of patients whose suspicious skin lesions ultimately required resection. Further research is needed to validate quality criteria that might be useful for tele-expertise in dermatology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov under reference number NCT03137511 (May 2, 2017).

Development of a patient decision aid for COVID-19 vaccination with the Comirnaty vaccine.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 has been responsible for a pandemic since the beginning of 2020. Vaccine arrival brings a concrete solution to fight the virus. However, vaccine hesitancy is high. In France, the first available vaccine was Comirnaty from Pfizer-BioNTech. Shared decision-making, based on tools such as patient decision aids (PtDAs), can help patients make an informed choice about vaccination with Comirnaty. OBJECTIVE: The French College of Teachers in General Practice (CNGE) aimed to create a PtDA for people who have to decide whether they will receive the Comirnaty vaccine. METHODS: Development of the PtDA was performed according to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS). The initial design was based on a literature review and semistructured interviews with 17 patients to explore and clarify patients' expectations. A first draft of the PtDA was then alpha tested by a patient expert group and a physician expert group. The PtDA was finally beta tested in 14 prevaccine consultations. A steering group was consulted throughout the work. Patient support, community groups and the French National Authority for Health (HAS) were involved in the development process. RESULTS: A literature review identified one randomized trial on Comirnaty efficacy and safety. The first part of the PtDA allows patients to identify their own risk factors. The second part of the PtDA provides information on vaccination: benefits and risks, unknown data, and technical explanations about the mRNA vaccine. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a PtDA to be used in primary care settings for shared decision-making regarding vaccination with Comirnaty.

Effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention to deprescribe proton pump inhibitors in primary care: protocol for a population-based, pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriately using proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is associated with severe adverse drug reactions and may have major consequences on healthcare costs. Deprescribing (the process by which a healthcare professional supervises the withdrawal of an inappropriate medication, to manage polypharmacy and improve outcomes) should be considered when an inappropriate PPI prescription is identified. Deprescribing interventions directed solely to prescribers have limited efficacy and are rarely targeted to patients. The aim of this trial is to assess the efficacy of a multi-faceted intervention with patients and general practitioners (GPs) to deprescribe PPI. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, population-based, controlled trial in two regions of Western France. GPs with practices with over 100 patients, and their adult patient to whom over 300 defined daily doses (DDD) of PPIs have been dispensed in the year before baseline will be included. A total of 1300 GPs and 33,000 patients will be cluster-randomized by GPs practices. Three arms will be compared: i) a multi-faceted intervention associating a) a patient education brochure about PPI deprescribing sent directly to patients (the brochure was designed using a mixed-methods study), and b) a personalized letter with the Bruyere's PPI deprescribing algorithm sent to their respective GPs, or ii) a single intervention where only the GPs received the letter and algorithm, or iii) no intervention. The primary outcome will be PPI deprescribing, defined as the proportion of patients achieving at least a 50% decrease in the amount of PPI dispensed to them (DDD/year) at 12 months compared to baseline. Secondary outcomes will include incremental cost-utility ratio (using EQ-5D-5L scale and National Health Insurance's database), acid rebound (using the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Impact Scale), and the patients' attitudes towards deprescribing (using the French rPATD). DISCUSSION: Based on previous trials, we anticipate more than 10% "successful PPI deprescribing" in the multi-faceted intervention compared to the single intervention on GPs and the control arm. The study has been funded through a national grant and will be launched in autumn 2020, for early results by the end of 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04255823 ; first registered on February 5, 2020.

Quality of decision aids developed for women at average risk of breast cancer eligible for mammographic screening: Systematic review and assessment according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument.

Mammographic screening contributes to a reduction in specific mortality, but it has disadvantages. Decision aids are tools designed to support people's decisions. Because these aids influence patient choice, their quality is crucial. The objective of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of decision aids developed for women eligible for mammographic screening who have an average breast cancer risk and to assess the quality of these aids. The systematic review included articles published between January 1, 1997, and August 1, 2019, in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycInfo databases. The studies were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers. Any study containing a decision aid for women eligible for mammographic screening with an average breast cancer risk was included. Two double-blind reviewers assessed the quality of the selected decision aids using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument, version 3 (IPDASi). Twenty-three decision aids were extracted. Classification of decision aid quality using the IPDASi demonstrated large variations among the decision aids (maximum IPDASi score, 188; mean ± SD score, 132.6 ± 23.8; range, 85-172). Three decision aids had high overall scores. The 3 best-rated dimensions were disclosure (maximum score, 8; mean score, 6.8), focusing on transparency; information (maximum score, 32; mean score, 26.1), focusing on the provision of sufficient details; and probabilities (maximum score, 32; mean score 25), focusing on the presentation of probabilities. The 3 lowest-rated dimensions were decision support technology evaluation (maximum score, 8; mean score, 4.3), focusing on the effectiveness of the decision aid; development (maximum score, 24; mean score, 12.6), evaluating the development process; and plain language (maximum score, 4; mean score, 1.9), assessing appropriateness for patients with low literacy. The results of this review identified 3 high-quality decision aids for breast cancer screening.

Hypnotic prescription by GPs is associated with their personal drug consumption but not by their insomnia status.

French general practitioners (GPs) are known to widely prescribe medications to treat insomnia despite their negative effects. GPs' easy access to self-medication may affect their mental representation of sleep and hypnotics, and subsequently their professional behaviour. Our aim was to examine the association between GPs' personal hypnotic drug consumption habits and their management of patients with sleep disturbances. A randomized sample of Alsatian GPs participated in a survey based on questionnaires including the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Dysfunctional Beliefs About Sleep in 10 questions to characterize sleep, and an evaluation of their management strategies regarding sleep for both patients and themselves. Two-hundred and forty-nine GPs were included (response rate of 51%). Demographics of the GPs' samples were representative of those of the Alsatian GP population. Fifteen percent of the survey respondents met insomnia criteria. For the management of their own sleep disturbances, 14.3% of GPs were taking hypnotic drugs and 8.7% were taking anxiolytics, with greater drug consumption in the insomnia group. In a multivariate analysis, GPs who personally consumed these medications prescribed significantly more of them to patients, whereas their insomnia status had less impact. Other factors such as gender and type of practice were not associated with a higher prescription rate. Our results indicate that GPs' personal drug consumption can have a significant impact on the management of their patients, therefore suggesting that actions towards GPs' health improvement may also benefit their patients and the public.

Suitability of patient education materials on proton-pump inhibitors deprescribing: a focused review.

PURPOSE: Engaging patients in the process of deprescribing is a necessity. Several patient education materials have been developed for this purpose. The aim of this study was to assess the suitability of the existing patient education materials for proton-pump inhibitors deprescribing. METHODS: We conducted a targeted inventory of the available materials on scientific literature and known repositories. We evaluated their suitability with the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument. Materials were rated independently by two researchers and then discussed until consensus was reached. RESULTS: Seven patient education materials were identified. Three materials (42.9%) were deemed "superior" and 4 (57.1%) were deemed "adequate". Ratings were generally good in the categories of content, learning stimulation, motivation, typography and layout. The major weaknesses included the use of inappropriate graphics and the too demanding required reading grade level. These may decrease patient attention and comprehension and therefore the effectiveness of education materials. CONCLUSIONS: Suitability of the patient education materials on proton-pump inhibitors deprescribing is overall satisfactory. Greater attention on readability, graphics and inclusion of summaries will be needed for development of future materials.

Use of Smartphones for Early Detection of Melanoma: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The early diagnosis of melanoma is associated with decreased mortality. The smartphone, with its apps and the possibility of sending photographs to a dermatologist, could improve the early diagnosis of melanoma. OBJECTIVE: The aim of our review was to report the evidence on (1) the diagnostic performance of automated smartphone apps and store-and-forward teledermatology via a smartphone in the early detection of melanoma, (2) the impact on the patient's medical-care course, and (3) the feasibility criteria (focusing on the modalities of picture taking, transfer of data, and time to get a reply). METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed for the period from January 1, 2007 (launch of the first smartphone) to November 1, 2017. RESULTS: The results of the 25 studies included 13 concentrated on store-and-forward teledermatology, and 12 analyzed automated smartphone apps. Store-and-forward teledermatology opens several new perspectives, such as it accelerates the care course (less than 10 days vs 80 days), and the related procedures were assessed in primary care populations. However, the concordance between the conclusion of a teledermatologist and the conclusion of a dermatologist who conducts a face-to-face examination depended on the study (the kappa coefficient range was .20 to .84, median κ=.60). The use of a dermoscope may improve the concordance (the kappa coefficient range was .29 to .87, median κ=.74). Regarding automated smartphone apps, the major concerns are the lack of assessment in clinical practice conditions, the lack of assessment in primary care populations, and their low sensitivity, ranging from 7% to 87% (median 69%). In this literature review, up to 20% of the photographs transmitted were of insufficient quality. The modalities of picture taking and encryption of the data were only partially reported. CONCLUSIONS: The use of store-and-forward teledermatology could improve access to a dermatology consultation by optimizing the care course. Our review confirmed the absence of evidence of the safety and efficacy of automated smartphone medical apps. Further research is required to determine quality criteria, as there was major variability among the studies.

Effect of Physician Notification Regarding Nonadherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening on Patient Participation in Fecal Immunochemical Test Cancer Screening: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Increasing participation in fecal screening tests is a major challenge in countries that have implemented colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. Objective: To determine whether providing general practitioners (GPs) a list of patients who are nonadherent to CRC screening enhances patient participation in fecal immunochemical testing (FIT). Design, Setting, and Participants: A 3-group, cluster-randomized study was conducted from July 14, 2015, to July 14, 2016, on the west coast of France, with GPs in 801 practices participating and involving adult patients (50-74 years) who were at average risk of CRC and not up-to-date with CRC screening. The final follow-up date was July 14, 2016. Interventions: General practitioners were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 496 received a list of patients who had not undergone CRC screening (patient-specific reminders group, 10 476 patients), 495 received a letter describing region-specific CRC screening adherence rates (generic reminders group, 10 606 patients), and 455 did not receive any reminders (usual care group, 10 147 patients). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was patient participation in CRC screening 1 year after the intervention. Results: Among 1482 randomized GPs (mean age, 53.4 years; 576 women [38.9%]), 1446 participated; of the 33 044 patients of these GPs (mean age, 59.7 years; 17 949 women [54.3%]), follow-up at 1 year was available for 31 229 (94.5%). At 1 year, 24.8% (95% CI, 23.4%-26.2%) of patients in the specific reminders group, 21.7% (95% CI, 20.5%-22.8%) in the generic reminders group, and 20.6% (95% CI, 19.3%-21.8%) in the usual care group participated in the FIT screening. The between-group differences were 3.1% (95% CI, 1.3%-5.0%) for the patient-specific reminders group vs the generic reminders group, 4.2% (95% CI, 2.3%-6.2%) for the patient-specific reminders group vs the usual care group, and 1.1% (95% CI, -0.6% to 2.8%) for generic reminders group vs the usual care group. Conclusions and Relevance: Providing French GPs caring for adults at average risk of CRC with a list of their patients who were not up-to-date with their CRC screening resulted in a small but significant increase in patient participation in FIT screening at 1 year compared with patients who received usual care. Providing GPs with generic reminders about regional rates of CRC screening did not increase screening rates compared with usual care. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02515344.

Inclusion of populations at risk of advanced melanoma in an opportunistic targeted screening project involving general practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to measure the rates of inclusion of populations at risk of advanced melanoma in a pilot targeted screening project involving general practitioners. DESIGN: This cross-sectional database study compared the inclusion rates of patients who signed inclusion in a targeted screening project with those of patients who did not, during a period in which both groups of patients consulted investigators. SETTING: Data were extracted from the national healthcare insurance records in western France from 11 April to 30 October 2011. PATIENTS: Patients, older than 18, considered for the data extraction had consulted one of the 78 participating GPs during the study period, and were affiliated with the national healthcare insurance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inclusion in the screening was the main outcome measure. Patients at risk of advanced melanoma were characterized by male gender, age over 50, low income, rural residence, farmer, and presence of chronic disease. RESULTS: A total of 57,279 patients consulted GPs during the inclusion period and 2711 (4.73%) were included in the targeted screening. Populations at risk of advanced melanoma were less included: men (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.61-0.73]; p < 0.001), older than 50 (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.60-0.74]; p < 0.001), low income (OR = 0.65; 95%CI [0.55-0.77]; p < 0.001), farmer (OR = 0.23; 95%CI [0.17-0.30]; p < 0.001) and presence of a chronic disease (OR = 0.87; 95%CI [0.77-0.98]; p < 0.028). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated inequalities in the inclusion of patients in a melanoma screening. Patients at risk of advanced cancer were screened less often. Further studies should focus on GPs ability to identify and screen these patients. KEY POINTS Advanced melanoma is more frequently diagnosed in men, older patients and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, which leads to survival inequalities. • Despite the involvement of general practitioners, the implementation of targeted melanoma screening did not avoid inclusion inequalities. • Men, older patients, patients suffering from chronic diseases, and low-income patients were less likely to benefit from screening. • The display of a conventional or an alarmist poster in the waiting room did not statistically reduce these inclusion inequalities.

Patients at elevated risk of melanoma: individual predictors of non-compliance to GP referral for a dermatologist consultation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess whether patients at elevated risk of melanoma attended a dermatologist consultation after a General Practitioner referral and to determine individual predictors of non-compliance. METHOD: This survey included 1506 high-risk French patients (selected using the Self-Assessment Melanoma Risk Score) referred to a dermatologist between April and October 2011. Compliance was evaluated from January to April 2012, based on attendance at a dermatologist consultation (or scheduling an appointment). Demographic data and factors mapping the Health Belief Model were tested as correlates using a multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Compliance with referral was 58.4%. The top seven factors associated with non-compliance were as follows: GP advice to consult was unclear (OR=13.22; [7.66-23.56]); no previous participation in cancer screenings, including smear tests (OR=5.03; [2.23-11.83]) and prostate screening (OR=2.04; [1.06-3.97]); lack of knowledge that melanoma was a type of cancer (OR=1.94; [1.29-2.92]); and reporting no time to make an appointment (OR=2.08; [1.82-2.38]), forgetting to make an appointment (OR=1.26; [1.08-1.46]), long delays in accessing an appointment (OR=1.25; [1.12-1.41]), not being afraid of detecting something abnormal (OR=1.54; [1.35-1.78]), no need to consult a dermatologist to feel secure (OR=1.28; [1.09-1.51]). CONCLUSION: Physicians should be aware of the factors predicting patient compliance with referrals for dermatologist consultations; better General Practitioner counseling might enhance compliance in high-risk populations.

Targeted melanoma prevention intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Targeted interventions to reduce the risk and increase the early detection of melanoma have the potential to save lives. We aimed to assess the effect of such an intervention on patient prevention behavior. METHODS: We conducted a pilot clustered randomized controlled trial, comparing a targeted screening and education intervention with a conventional information-based campaign in 20 private surgeries in western France. In the intervention group, 10 general practitioners identified patients at elevated risk for melanoma with a validated assessment tool, the Self-Assessment Melanoma Risk Score (SAMScore), examined their skin, and counseled them using information leaflets. In the control group, 10 general practitioners displayed a poster and the leaflets in their waiting room and examined patients' skin at their own discretion. The main outcome measures were sunbathing and skin self-examinations among patients at elevated risk, assessed 5 months later with a questionnaire. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 173 patients. Compared with control patients, intervention patients were more likely to remember the campaign (81.4% vs 50.0%, P = .0001) and to correctly identify their elevated risk of melanoma (71.1% vs 42.1%, P = .001). Furthermore, intervention patients had higher levels of prevention behaviors: they were less likely to sunbathe in the summer (24.7% vs 40.8%, P = .048) and more likely to have performed skin self-examinations in the past year (52.6% vs 36.8%, P = .029). The intervention was not associated with any clear adverse effects, although there were trends whereby intervention patients were more likely to worry about melanoma and to consult their general practitioner again about the disease. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of use of the SAMScore and general practitioner examination and counseling during consultations is an efficient way to promote patient behaviors that may reduce melanoma risk. Extending the duration of follow-up and demonstrating an impact on morbidity and mortality remain major issues for further research.

Did the new French pay-for-performance system modify benzodiazepine prescribing practices?

BACKGROUND: French general practitioners (GPs) were enrolled in a new payment system in January 2012. As part of a national agreement with the French National Ministry of Health, GPs were asked to decrease the proportion of patients who continued their benzodiazepine treatment 12 weeks after its initiation and to decrease the proportion of patients older than 65 who were prescribed long half-life benzodiazepines. In return, GPs could expect an extra payment of up to 490 euros per year. This study reports the evolution of the corresponding prescribing practices of French GPs during that period regarding patients who were prescribed a benzodiazepine for the first time. METHODS: The national healthcare system's administrative database was used to report the longitudinal follow-up of two historical cohorts of French patients from the Pays de la Loire area. STUDY PATIENTS: The "2011" and "2012" cohorts included all patients who initiated benzodiazepine regimens from April 1 to June 30 in 2011 and 2012, respectively.The primary outcomes were the proportion of those study patients who continued benzodiazepine treatment after 12 weeks and the proportion of study patients >65 years who were prescribed long half-life benzodiazepines.Analyses were performed using a multi-level regression. RESULTS: In total, 41,436 and 42,042 patients initiated benzodiazepine treatment in 2011 and 2012, respectively. A total of 18.97% of patients continued treatment for more than 12 weeks in 2012, compared with 18.18% in 2011. In all, 27.43% and 28.06% of patients >65 years continued treatment beyond 12 weeks in 2011 and 2012, respectively. The proportion of patients >65 years who were prescribed long half-life benzodiazepines decreased from 53.5% to 48.8% (p < 0.005) due to an increase in short half-life benzodiazepine prescriptions. Patients >65 years who were prescribed short half-life benzodiazepines were more likely to continue treatment after 12 weeks (p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the pay-for-performance strategy, the number of short half-life benzodiazepine prescriptions increased between 2011 and 2012, and the number of long half-life benzodiazepine initiations remained unchanged. Reducing the proportion of long half-life benzodiazepine prescriptions might be counterproductive because prescribing short half-life benzodiazepines was associated with higher rates of continuation beyond the recommended duration.

Involving community pharmacists in interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization supports interprofessional collaboration in primary care. On over the past 20 years, community pharmacists had been taking a growing number of new responsibilities and they are recognized as a core member of collaborative care teams as patient-centered care providers. This systematic review aimed to describe interprofessional collaboration in primary care involving a pharmacist, and its effect on patient related outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials cited in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL in English and French was conducted from inception to November 2022. Studies were included if they described an intervention piloted by a primary care provider and included a pharmacist and if they evaluated the effects of intervention on a disease or on patient related outcomes. The search generated 3494 articles. After duplicates were removed and titles and abstracts screened for inclusion, 344 articles remained. RESULTS: Overall, 19 studies were included in the review and assessed for quality. We found 14 studies describing an exclusive collaboration between physician and pharmacist with for all studies a three-step model of pharmacist intervention: a medication review, an interview with the patient, and recommendations made to physician. Major topics in the articles eligible for inclusion included cardiovascular diseases with blood pressure, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and risk of cardiovascular diseases. Positive effects concerned principally blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration involving pharmacists is mainly described in relation to cardiovascular diseases, for which patient-centered indicators are most often positive. It underscores the need for further controlled studies on pharmacist-involved interprofessional collaboration across various medical conditions to improve consensus on core outcomes measures.

Development and evaluation of a decision aid for women eligible for organized breast cancer screening according to international standards: A multi-method study.

BACKGROUND: and purpose: In France, women lack information to make a shared decision to start breast cancer screening. Decision aids are useful to facilitate this discussion, yet few meet international standards. The objective of this project was to build, validate and measure the quality of a decision aid for organized breast screening in France, in line with international standards, intended for both women and healthcare professionals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This mixed-methods study was conducted between January 2017 and June 2022. The prototype was developed from a qualitative study, systematic review and targeted literature review and alpha tested during two Delphi rounds. Readability was evaluated with the Flesch score and content with International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument (IPSASi). RESULTS: An online decision aid, accessible at www.Discutons-mammo.fr, written in French was developed. The content included eligibility, information about breast screening the advantages and disadvantages of screening, patient preferences and a patient-based discussion guide using text, infographics, and videos. The Flesch readability test score was 65.4 and the IPDASi construct quality score was 176 out of 188. CONCLUSIONS: This decision aid complies with IPDASi standards and could help women eligible for breast screening in France make a shared decision with a specialized healthcare professional about whether or not to participate in organized breast screening.

Identification of factors associated with non-adherence to recommended COVID-19 preventive behaviours: a cross-sectional study based on a survey among 1004 French primary care professionals.

OBJECTIVES: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, adherence to preventive behaviours to limit virus spread has been a major issue. The study objective was to identify factors associated with non-adherence to preventive behaviours among general practitioners (GPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic using data from a questionnaire completed during the French National Congress of General Medicine in June 2021. DESIGN: This descriptive study relied on data collected with a questionnaire during the national congress on general medicine in Bordeaux, France, from 16-18 June 2021. SETTING: The study was conducted in primary care in France. PARTICIPANTS: Out of a total of 1004 GPs and GP trainees, 755 completed the questionnaire during conferences and 249 were contacted by mail. RESULTS: The questionnaire included questions on sociodemographic characteristics and COVID-19 related preventive behaviours, beliefs and experiences. Answers to questions that explored the Health Belief Model components were selected and then compared among participants who reported appropriate preventive behaviours (wearing face masks and social distancing) and participants who reported non-adherence. Analysis was based on multivariate logistic regression.The responders' mean age was 35.8 years; 61.64% were women, 61.9% were practising GPs and 37.2% were GP trainees. Moreover, 96.6% of participants had completed the COVID-19 vaccination schedule. Non-adherence (reported by 72/1004 participants) was more frequent among smokers (OR=2.57, 95% CI 1.29 to 4.83, p=0.005) and younger participants (OR=0.95, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98, p=0.005). Complete COVID-19 vaccination or a previous infection was not associated with non-adherence and has been poorly described. CONCLUSION: More studies are needed to confirm the factors involved in the adoption of COVID-19 preventive behaviours by healthcare professionals and to explore the beliefs and barriers to the adoption of these behaviours.

Interprofessional collaboration in primary care: what effect on patient health? A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: In a period of change in the organization of primary care, Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC) is presented as one of the solutions to health issues. Although the number of inter-professional interventions grounded in primary care increases in all developed countries, evidence on the effects of these collaborations on patient-centred outcomes is patchy. The objective of our study was to assess the effects of IPC grounded in the primary care setting on patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature review using the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 01/01/1995 to 01/03/2021, according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting the effects of IPC in primary care on patient health outcomes were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the revised Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: Sixty-five articles concerning 61 interventions were analysed. A total of 43 studies were prospective and randomized. Studies were classified into 3 main categories as follows: 1) studies with patients at cardiovascular risk (28 studies)-including diabetes (18 studies) and arterial hypertension (5 studies); 2) studies including elderly and/or polypathological patients (18 studies); and 3) patients with symptoms of mental or physical disorders (15 studies). The number of included patients varied greatly (from 50 to 312,377). The proportion of studies that reported a positive effect of IPC on patient-centred outcomes was as follows: 23 out of the 28 studies including patients at cardiovascular risk, 8 out of the 18 studies of elderly or polypathological patients, and 11 out of the 12 studies of patients with mental or physical disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that IPC is effective in the management of patients at cardiovascular risk. In elderly or polypathological patients and in patients with mental or physical disorders, the number of studies remains very limited, and the results are heterogeneous. Researchers should be encouraged to perform studies based on comparative designs: it would increase evidence on the positive effect and benefits of IPC on patient variables.

A face-to-face national congress experience during the COVID-19 pandemic: A report focussing on the risk of COVID-19 contamination.

BACKGROUND: The Congress of the National College of Academic General Practitioners took place in France in June 2021. In total, 1300 participants were registered, provoking concerns about the risk of COVID-19 contamination. OBJECTIVES: The study objective was to report participation in the first French face-to-face medical congress after restrictions due to COVID-19 and whether it resulted in COVID-19 contamination. METHODS: We performed two web-based surveys of respectively 46 and 33 questions. The first questionnaire was sent to all congress participants during the congress (and to a panel of non-participants) and investigated demographic characteristics, medical conditions, behaviours related to COVID-19 contamination risk, and the interest of face-to-face congress as compared to virtual congress. Two weeks after the congress, a questionnaire was addressed to the same population and to university General Practice departments to identify incident COVID-19 cases among participants. RESULTS: A total of 1001 general practitioners and residents completed the first questionnaire; 752 participated in the congress. The respondents were mainly women (61.3%), with a mean age of 35 (SD 10) years, 96.2% had been vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, and 11.4% considered themselves at risk for a severe form of COVID-19 for medical reasons. Concerning the interest in attending the congress face-to-face, mean score was 9 over 10 (SD 1.5). No case of COVID-19 was reported among participants according to the second questionnaire (449 respondents). CONCLUSION: During a world pandemic, even participants considering themselves at risk came to a medical congress, highlighting the networking and social aspects of a face-to-face congress.

Breast cancer: a randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of a decision aid on mammography screening uptake: study protocol.

Introduction: Breast cancer (BC) is the primary cancer among women. The World Health Organization recommends a bilateral screening mammogram every 2 years for women aged 50 to 74 years. However, it has been shown that there is an absence of information about the benefits and risks of screening. Shared medical decision-making is important to ensure patients are involved in the decision process. Decision aids can facilitative this decision-making process. This article presents a protocol to evaluate the effect of a decision aid on participation rates in the French organized BC screening program. Methods and analysis: Design and setting. The design is a 2 arm randomized controlled study, performed in the Pays de la Loire region (French West Coast). Randomization will be based on general medicine practices (Primary Care). Participants: Women aged between 50 and 74 years, eligible for BC screening. In this region, there are 75000 women, and 2800 general practitioners eligible for recruitment. Intervention: In the « Decision aid for organized cancer screening ¼ arm, the intervention will distribute invitation letters to eligible women combined with the provision of decision aid to these women and their general practitioners and an incentive to implement shared medical decision-making. In the « Standard organized cancer screening ¼ arm, only the screening invitation will be sent to eligible women. Primary endpoint: BC screening participation rates will be assessed after an 18-month follow-up period. Statistical analysis: In this non-inferiority trial, the percentage of women who are up-to-date with their screening at 18 months after the intervention will be compared across arms using a generalized mixed linear model. Discussion: The research team expect to demonstrate that providing a better explanation of the benefits and risks of BC screening is not at odds with screening participation. The study results should help policy makers thinking about implementing shared medical decision-making within the framework of organized BC screening programs in the future. Ethics and dissemination: On 6 December 2021, the protocol received a favorable opinion from the French Committee for the Protection of Persons (2021-A01583-38). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT05607849. (Version 1, November 7, 2022; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05607849). The study findings will be used for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presentations in scientific meetings.