Assessment of multi-professional primary healthcare center quality by patients with multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND: The main aim of this study was to build an item bank for assessing the care quality of multi-professional healthcare centers (MPHCC) from the perspective of patients with multimorbidity. This study was part of the QUALSOPRIM (QUALité des SOins PRIMaires; primary healthcare quality) research project to create a psychometrically robust self-administered questionnaire to assess healthcare quality. METHODS: First, twelve experts built an item bank using data from a previous qualitative work and a systematic literature review. Second, the validity of each item was assessed in a sample of patients. Adult patients with multimorbidity were recruited from six French MPHCC. Items were assessed based on ceiling effects, the level of missing or neutral responses and patient feedback. Patient feedback was recorded after the item bank completion. Based on results, items were validated, improved, or removed during expert meetings. In case of disagreement the Delphi method was used to reach consensus. RESULTS: The study sample included 209 outpatients. The most frequent medical conditions were cardiovascular risk factors, cardiovascular diseases and rheumatological conditions. In total, a bank of 109 items classified in nine domains was built. The validity assessment led to the removal of 34 items. Retained items explored a variety of topics related to care quality: availability, accessibility, premises' layout and building, technical care, expertise, organization, relationships with caregivers and communication, involvement and personal relationships. CONCLUSIONS: This study allowed cross-validation of a bank of 75 items, leading to a complete picture of the patient perception of care quality items. Overall, patients were generally satisfied with their care at the MPHCC. Nonetheless, there were still numerous items on subjects for which patients' satisfaction could be improved.

Innovative cardiovascular primary prevention population-based strategies: a 2-year hybrid type 1 implementation randomised control trial (RCT) which evaluates behavioural change conducted by community champions compared with brief advice only from the SPICES project (scaling-up packages of interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention in selected sites in Europe and sub-Saharan Africa).

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) caused 17.9 million deaths worldwide in 2016, being the world's leading cause of death. Prevention of CVD in high-income countries is expensive and fails to reach the population at risk. In low-income countries, it is under-developed. The SPICES project implements a community-based program to improve CVD prevention in 3 European countries and 2 Sub-Saharan countries, based on using community champions to effect behavioural changes. In France, the project operates in "Pays Centre Ouest Bretagne" (COB) which is the Central West Brittany area, and a vulnerable, rural setting. The aim of this study is to assess this innovative prevention strategy versus brief advice. METHODS: A two-step RCT hybrid type 1 implementation study will first of all screen a population using the Non-Laboratory INTERHEART Score (NL-IHRS) and will involve health-care students at public events in the COB area until 1000 participants have been recruited. Second, a RCT will be carried out. The research team will contact each participant with an intermediate NL-IHRS in order to include them. Participants will be over 18 years of age and work or live in the COB area. Participants will be equally randomised in two groups. The intervention group will receive brief advice plus behavioural change guidance carried out by community champions. The control group will receive brief advice only. The main objective for the RCT is to assess a difference of at least 15% in the NL-IHRS between the two groups after 24 months. The primary outcome will be analysed with intention to treat. Secondary outcomes for the RCT will be assessed using validated questionnaires: the WHOQOL-BREF, the DASH Q questionnaire, the IPAQ-short; smoking level will be assessed according to the NL-IHRS scoring system; a modified self-declared alcohol consumption questionnaire has been developed and gauges will be used to assess BMI. The implementation strategy will use mixed methods: qualitative research methods and quantitative epidemiological studies. DISCUSSION: A difference in the mean NL-IHRS of 15% will provide an argument in favour of reorganising prevention policies. A substantial change would favour relocating primary prevention from healthcare professionals to lay people and the community. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT03886064 - the study was recorded on ClinicalTrials.gov , the 22nd of March 2019.

Screening for cardiovascular risk in the general population: The SPICES implementation survey.

Background: In 2019, cardiovascular diseases (CVD) caused 32% of deaths worldwide. The SPICES survey involved five countries in an international primary CVD prevention implementation study in the general population. The French SPICES survey was implemented in the Centre Ouest Bretagne area (COB), which is a rural, economically deprived, medically underserved territory with high cardiovascular mortality. A CVD screening in the general population was needed to select the implementation population without overburdening family practitioner (FP) workforces. The efficacy and the replicability of such a screening were unknown. The aims of this study were to identify the characteristics of the individuals undergoing CVD risk assessment with the Non-Laboratory Interheart risk score (NL-IHRS), and to identify barriers and explore facilitators when screening the general population. Methods: An implementation study combining a cross-sectional descriptive study with qualitative interviews was undertaken. The NL-IHRS was completed by trained screeners selected from health students, pharmacists, nurses, and physiotherapists in the area with a dedicated e-tool in sport and cultural events and public places. After the screening, all screener groups were interviewed until theoretical saturation for each group. Thematic analysis was performed using double-blind coding. Results: In 5 months, 3,384 assessments were undertaken in 60 different places, mostly by health students. A total of 1,587, 1,309, and 488 individuals were at low, moderate, and high CVD risk. Stressed or depressed individuals were remarkably numerous (40.1 and 24.5% of the population, respectively). Forty-seven interviews were conducted. The main facilitators were willingness of the population, trust between screeners and the research team, and media publicity. The main barriers were lack of motivation of some screeners, some individuals at risk, some stakeholders and difficulties in handling the e-tool. Conclusion: The efficacy of CVD risk screening while using mostly health students was excellent and preserved the FP workforce. Replicability was highly feasible if research teams took great care to establish and maintain trust between screeners and researchers. The e-tools should be more user-friendly.

Improvement of participation rate in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by training general practitioners in motivational interviewing (AmDepCCR).

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in France (17,712 annual deaths). However, this cancer is preventable in the majority of cases by the early detection of adenomas. In France, the organized screening for CRC relies on general practitioners (GPs). The tests delivered by the GPs are carried out in 89% of cases. However, GPs do not systematically offer the test, because of time management and communication. METHODS: AmDepCCR is a cluster randomized trial. Patients are prospectively included by their GPs. The study is designed in 2 phases for the GPs: first, GPs who have never participated in motivational interviewing (MI) training will be recruited then randomly split in 2 groups. Secondly, a 6-day motivational interviewing training will be carried out for the intervention group. Then, patients will be included in both groups during a period of 1 year. The primary outcome will be the number of CRC screenings achieved in each group and its difference. The secondary outcome will be the reluctance to screening and the patient's self-estimated life expectancy at 0, 6, 12, and 24 months using the Health Belief Model (HBM). DISCUSSION: This study will help to know if GPs motivational interviewing is useful to improve organized CRC screening. In addition, it may help to improve communication between patients and GPs. GPs will be able to improve their practice in other fields of application through motivational interviewing (other screenings, addictions…). TRIAL REGISTRATION: 2019-A01776-51 NCT04492215 .