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).

Influence of low back pain characteristics on the healthcare procedures prescribed by general practitioners for adult patients: ancillary analysis of the French ECOGEN study.

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain is a frequent reason for consultation, yet little is known about how general practitioners manage it in France. OBJECTIVES: To describe the healthcare procedures general practitioners prescribe for low back pain in France. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an ancillary analysis of an observational, cross-sectional study (ECOGEN) conducted between November 2011 and April 2012 among 128 general practitioners. Adults younger than 65 years consulting for low back pain were included. Patient and general practitioner characteristics, consultation results (diagnosis) and healthcare procedures were collected and coded using the International Classification in Primary Care. Analyses focused on the initial or follow-up consultation, adjusting on age, gender, and socio-occupational category. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Out of 11510 consultations, 845 (7.3%) were for low back pain. Of these, 776 (79.5%) resulted in a clinical examination, 634 (73.4%) in medication prescription, and 203 (23.9%) were prescribed sick leave, but imaging and specialist referral were rare. Imaging was more frequent with radiating pain (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.61; 95% CI [1.07, 2.42]), as were specialist referrals (OR = 2.92; 95% CI [1.40, 6.09]) and sick leave prescription (aOR = 1.52; 95% CI [1.10, 2.09]), but physiotherapist referral was less frequent (aOR = 0.55; 95% CI [0.38, 0.82]). Clinical examinations (aOR = 2.75; 95% CI [1.98, 3.80]), imaging (aOR = 1.61; 95% CI [1.02, 2.31]) and medication prescriptions (aOR = 2.34; 95% CI [1.65, 3.30]) were more common in initial consultations, but specialist referral (aOR = 0.16; 95% CI [0.05, 0.47]) or sick leave prescription (aOR = 0.68; 95% CI [0.48, 0.97]) were rarer. CONCLUSION: Low back pain characteristics could influence healthcare procedures more markedly than patient or general practitioner characteristics.

[What role can doctors play in health education at school? Analysis of an original multi-professional experience]. / Rôle des médecins dans l'éducation pour la santé à l'école. Analyse d'une expérience pluriprofessionnelle originale.

OBJECTIVE: The Espace Santé Jeune (ESJ) is a health education project conducted since 2008 in a French middle school. Pupils are invited to share their experiences about health in group speaking sessions led by a general practitioner (GP) accompanied by a municipal youth worker or a teacher. This study, based on the experience of the actors, seeks to understand the role of physicians and to identify the levers of the project. METHODS: A mixed method study was conducted from January to June 2015 by focus groups, individual interviews and questionnaire. Results of the inductive analysis by grounded theory methodology were compared to the quantitative results. RESULTS: 30 participants were included in the qualitative study (20 pupils, 5 teachers, 4 GP, 1 youth worker) and 107 pupils answered the questionnaire (71% response rate). The ESJ is a space centered on the speech of young people, experienced as a moment of freedom and appreciated by 70% of participants. The role of the GPs during the sessions oscillates between "animation of debates" and "expertise", and the complementarity of the competences with the educational professionals facilitates their intervention. Beyond the sessions, the presence of the GP is perceived as essential because their status brings a global legitimacy to the project. The intervention is based on the commitment of the professionals, the multi-professionality, the coordination and the sharing of a common culture for prevention. CONCLUSION: The ESJ is an innovative experience encouraging the commitment of GPs in local public health actions.

Health sciences libraries' subscriptions to journals: expectations of general practice departments and collection-based analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (i) assess the expectations of general practice departments regarding health sciences libraries' subscriptions to journals and (ii) describe the current general practice journal collections of health sciences libraries. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to the thirty-five university general practice departments in France. General practice departments were asked to list ten journals to which they expected access via the subscriptions of their health sciences libraries. A ranked reference list of journals was then developed. Access to these journals was assessed through a survey sent to all health sciences libraries in France. Adequacy ratios (access/need) were calculated for each journal. RESULTS: All general practice departments completed the survey. The total reference list included 44 journals. This list was heterogeneous in terms of indexation/impact factor, language of publication, and scope (e.g., patient care, research, or medical education). Among the first 10 journals listed, La Revue Prescrire (96.6%), La Revue du Praticien-Médecine Générale (90.9%), the British Medical Journal (85.0%), Pédagogie Médicale (70.0%), Exercer (69.7%), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (62.5%) had the highest adequacy ratios, whereas Family Practice (4.2%), the British Journal of General Practice (16.7%), Médecine (29.4%), and the European Journal of General Practice (33.3%) had the lowest adequacy ratios. CONCLUSIONS: General practice departments have heterogeneous expectations in terms of health sciences libraries' subscriptions to journals. It is important for librarians to understand the heterogeneity of these expectations, as well as local priorities, so that journal access meets users' needs.

[Representativeness of general practice university lecturers]. / Représentativité des médecins généralistes maîtres de stage universitaires.

OBJECTIVE: In order to develop primary care research by general practice university lecturers, it was necessary to evaluate the representativeness of this group of lecturers at the Angers Faculty of Medicine. METHODS: Declarative study based on self-administered questionnaires filled in by 216 university lecturers. The questionnaire was derived from that of the regional panel of the Research, studies, evaluation and statistics directorate of 2007, investigating the sociodemographic characteristics, professional organization, activities and certain professional practices of general practitioners. University lecturers were compared to the population of the panel by means of a Chi-square test of conformity. RESULTS: A total of 181 university lecturers participated in the survey, comprising 65% of men. The proportion of women was higher among university lecturers and the 45-54years age-group was underrepresented. The university lecturers group was significantly different from the panel in terms of predominantly group practice and shorter weekly working hours. No significant difference was observed for the type of town of practice ahd the continuing medical education participation rate. CONCLUSION: University lecturers present certain specificities, partly related to the reference population used. The development of research based on such a network appears to be feasible in terms ofrepresentativeness, provided these specificities are clearly described.

Interventions focusing on psychosocial risk factors for patients with non-chronic low back pain in primary care--a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a problem that is frequently encountered in primary care, and current guidelines encourage care providers to take into account psychosocial risk factors in order to avoid transition from acute to chronic LBP. OBJECTIVE: To review the effectiveness of interventions focusing on psychosocial risk factors for patients with non-chronic LBP in primary care. METHODS: A systematic search was undertaken for controlled trials focusing on psychosocial factors in adult patients with non-chronic, non-specific LBP in primary care by exploring Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Francis, Web of Sciences and The Cochrane Library. The methodological quality of the studies included was assessed before analysing their findings. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were selected, seven being considered as having a low risk of bias. Information strategies were assessed by eight trials, with high-quality evidence of no effectiveness for pain, function, work issues and health care use, low-quality evidence of no effectiveness for self-rated overall improvement, satisfaction and pain beliefs and lack of evidence in terms of quality of life. Cognitive behavioural therapy was assessed by three trials, with very low-quality evidence of moderate effectiveness for pain, function, quality of life, work issues and health care use. There was lack of evidence concerning the effectiveness of individual and group education intervention or work coordination. CONCLUSION: Among the wide range of psychosocial risk factors, research has focused mainly on pain beliefs and coping skills, with disappointing results. Extended theoretical models integrating several psychosocial factors and multicomponent interventions are probably required to meet the challenge of LBP.

[Angers general practice residents' career projects in 2012]. / Intentions d'installation des internes angevins de médecine générale en 2012.

OBJECTIVE: Medical demography and the geographical distribution of general practitioners (GPs) in the Pays de la Loire Region constitute a challenge to equitable primary care access. The objective of this study was to describe the career projects of Angers general practice residents in 2012 and to assess their knowledge of installation aids and their impact on practice choices. METHOD: A questionnaire-based declarative study was conducted in April 2012. RESULTS: 204 out of 243 residents (84%) returned the questionnaire. Women represented 62% of responding residents. 56% of residents expressed their desire for predominantly outpatient general practice. A significant determinant in the choice of this type of practice was the voluntary choice of general practice during residency. Group practice was predominantly considered (86%), in semirural areas (60%). The administrative formalities to set up a general practice and the available aids were underestimated by 82% and 83% of residents, respectively. 91% of residents wanted to receive more information about administrative formalities and 82% considered that these aids could encourage their decision in favour of general practice. Anjou general practice residents appeared to be very attracted by outpatient general practice. CONCLUSION: This study shows that strategy of early contact with general practice in medical training should be continued. Information concerning the administrative formalities and aids available must be provided during medical training.

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.

Effectiveness of coordinated care to reduce the risk of prolonged disability among patients suffering from subacute or recurrent acute low back pain in primary care: protocol of the CO.LOMB cluster-randomized, controlled study.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a common musculoskeletal condition and, globally, a leading cause of years lived with disability. It leads to reduced social participation, impaired quality of life, and direct and indirect costs due to work incapacity. A coordinated approach focusing on psychosocial risk factors, active reeducation, and the early use of tools to maintain employment, may be effective for improving prognosis of patients with LBP. Primary care professionals and multidisciplinary teams, who see patients in the early stages of LBP may be in the best position to implement such a coordinated approach. We designed this study to assess a coordinated multi-faceted strategy in primary care for patients with subacute or recurrent acute LBP. Methods: The CO.LOMB study was designed as a multicentric, cluster-randomized, controlled study. Patients aged 18-60 years, with subacute or recurrent acute LBP are eligible. Patients also need to be employed (but can be on sick leave) with access to occupational health services. The clusters of GPs will be randomized (1:1) to either the Coordinated-care group or the Usual-care group. Patients will be assigned the group allocated to their GP. The healthcare professionals (GPs and associated physiotherapists) allocated to the Coordinated-care group will perform a 2-session study training. The following interventions are planned in the Coordinated-care group: exploration and management of psychosocial factors, active reeducation with a physiotherapist, the implementing of tools to maintain employment, and a reinforced cooperation between primary healthcare professionals. The primary objective is to assess the benefit of coordinated primary care to reduce disability in LBP patients at 12 months after enrollment: measure using the validated French version of the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire. Secondary objectives include the evaluation of pain, work status, and quality of life at various time points. The study plans to enroll 500 patients in 20 GP clusters. Patients will be followed up for 12months. Discussion: This study will evaluate the benefit of a coordinated multi-faceted strategy in primary care for patients with LBP. Notably whether this approach will alleviate the associated disability, attenuate pain, and promote the maintenance or return to work. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04826757.

Psychosocial risk factors for chronic low back pain in primary care--a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem, often encountered in primary care. Guidelines recommend early identification of psychosocial factors that could prevent recovery from acute LBP. METHODS: To review the evidence on the prognostic value of psychosocial factors on transition from acute to chronic non-specific LBP in the adult general population. Systematic review is the design of the study. A systematic search was undertaken for prospective studies dealing with psychosocial risk factors for poor outcome of LBP in primary care, screening PubMed, PsychInfo and Cochrane Library databases. The methodological quality of studies was assessed independently by two reviewers using standardized criteria before analysing their main results. RESULTS: Twenty-three papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria, covering 18 different cohorts. Sixteen psychosocial factors were analysed in three domains: social and socio-occupational, psychological and cognitive and behavioural. Depression, psychological distress, passive coping strategies and fear-avoidance beliefs were sometimes found to be independently linked with poor outcome, whereas most social and socio-occupational factors were not. The predictive ability of a patient's self-perceived general health at baseline was difficult to interpret because of biomedical confounding factors. The initial patient's or care provider's perceived risk of persistence of LBP was the factor that was most consistently linked with actual outcome. CONCLUSION: Few independent psychosocial risk factors have been demonstrated to exist. Randomized clinical trials aimed at modifying these factors have shown little impact on patient prognosis. Qualitative research might be valuable to explore further the field of LBP and to define new management strategies.

Effect of Living Wills on End-of-Life Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively assess the effect of a living will on end-of-life care. DESIGN: Systematic review with narrative analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. PARTICIPANTS: All interventional and observational studies were included, excepting those with fictive cases. Included studies were conducted in adults with and without living wills, excluding individuals with specific psychiatric living wills. MEASUREMENTS: Two authors independently extracted study and participant characteristics and outcomes related to end-of-life care (place of death, hospitalization and intensive care unit management, life-sustaining treatments, restricted care). Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. RESULTS: From 7,596 records identified, 28 observational studies were included, 19 conducted in the United States, 7 in Europe, and 1 each in Canada and Australia. Place of death was assessed in 14 studies, life-sustaining treatments in 13, decision for restricted care in 12, and hospitalization in 8. Risk of bias was serious for 26 studies and moderate for 2. Twenty-one studies reported significantly less medical management for individuals with a living will, 3 reported more medical management, and the difference was not significant in 37. CONCLUSION: Methodological quality of included studies was insufficient to offer reliable results. The effect of living wills appears limited in view of the importance and direction of potential biases. Further studies including larger populations, considering main confounding factors, and documenting the real presence of a living will in medical records are necessary to reach stronger conclusions on the effect of living wills on end-of-life care. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:164-171, 2019.

Psychosocial Risk Factors, Interventions, and Comorbidity in Patients with Non-Specific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: Need for Comprehensive and Patient-Centered Care.

Non-specific low back pain (LBP) affects many people and has major socio-economic consequences. Traditional therapeutic strategies, mainly focused on biomechanical factors, have had moderate and short-term impact. Certain psychosocial factors have been linked to poor prognosis of LBP and they are increasingly considered as promising targets for management of LBP. Primary health care providers (HCPs) are involved in most of the management of people with LBP and they are skilled in providing comprehensive care, including consideration of psychosocial dimensions. This review aims to discuss three pieces of recent research focusing on psychosocial issues in LBP patients in primary care. In the first systematic review, the patients' or HCPs' overall judgment about the likely evolution of LBP was the factor most strongly linked to poor outcome, with predictive validity similar to that of multidimensional scales. This result may be explained by the implicit aggregation of many prognostic factors underlying this judgment and suggests the relevance of considering the patients from biopsychosocial and longitudinal points of view. The second review showed that most of the interventions targeting psychosocial factors in LBP in primary care have to date focused on the cognitive-behavioral factors, resulting in little impact. It is unlikely that any intervention focusing on a single factor would ever fit the needs of most patients; interventions targeting determinants from several fields (mainly psychosocial, biomechanical, and occupational) may be more relevant. Should multiple stakeholders be involved in such interventions, enhanced interprofessional collaboration would be critical to ensure the delivery of coordinated care. Finally, in the third study, the prevalence of psychosocial comorbidity in chronic LBP patients was not found to be significantly higher than in other patients consulting in primary care. Rather than specifically screening for psychosocial conditions, this suggests taking into account any potential comorbidity in patients with chronic LBP, as in other patients. All these results support the adoption of a more comprehensive and patient-centered approach when dealing with patients with LBP in primary care. As this condition is illustrative of many situations encountered in primary care, the strategies proposed here may benefit most patients consulting in this setting.