Level of agreement between physician and patient assessment of non-medical health factors.

Background: GPs need to consider assorted relevant non-medical factors, such as family or work situations or health insurance coverage, to determine appropriate patient care. If GPs' knowledge of these factors varies according to patients' social position, less advantaged patients might receive poorer care, resulting in the perpetuation of social inequalities in health. Objective: To assess social disparities in GPs' knowledge of non-medical factors relevant to patient care. Methods: Observational survey of GPs who supervise internships in the Paris metropolitan area. Each of the 52 enrolled GPs randomly selected 70 patients from their patient list. Their knowledge of five relevant factors (coverage by publicly funded free health insurance, or by supplementary health insurance, living with a partner, social support and employment status) was analysed as the agreement between the patients' and GPs' answers to matching questions. Occupational, educational and financial disparities were estimated with multilevel models adjusted for age, sex, chronic disease and GP-patient relationship. Results: Agreement varied according to the factor considered from 66% to 91%. The global agreement score (percentage of agreement for all five factors) was 72%. Social disparities and often gradients, disfavouring the less well-off patients, were observed for each factor considered. Social gradients were most marked according to perceived financial situation and for health insurance coverage. Conclusion: GPs must be particularly attentive toward their least advantaged patients, to be aware of the relevant non-medical factors that affect these patients' health and care, and thus provide management adapted to each individual's personal situation.

[Patients forgoing health care for economic reasons: how to identify this in a primary care setting?]. / Renoncement aux soins: comment appréhender cette réalité en médecine de premier recours?

Although the performance of the Swiss health system is high, one out of ten patients in general practitioner's (GP) office declares having foregone care in the previous twelve months for economic reasons. Reasons for foregoing care are several and include a lack of knowledge of existing social aids in getting health insurance, unavailability of GPs and long waiting lists for various types of care. Although long term knowledge of patients or a psychosocial history of deprivation or poverty may help identify individuals at risk of foregoing care, many may remain undetected. We propose then a few instruments to help GPs to identify, in a simple and structured approach, patients at risk of forgoing care for economic reasons; these patients are frequently deprived and sometimes poor.

Ordinary defensive medicine: in the shadows of general practitioners' postures toward (over-)medicalisation.

This paper draws on qualitative research using focus groups involving 38 general practitioners (GPs). It explores their attitudes and feelings about (over-)medicalisation. Our main findings were that GPs had a complex representation of (over-)medicalisation, composed of many professional, social, technological, economic and relational issues. This representation led GPs to feel uncomfortable. They felt pressure from all sides, which led them to question their social roles and responsibilities. We identified four main GP-driven proposals to deal with (over-)medicalisation: (1) focusing on the communication in doctor-patient relationships; (2) grounding practices in evidence-based medicine; (3) relying on clinical skills, experience and intuition; and (4) promoting training, leadership bodies and social movements. Drawing on these proposals, we identify and discuss five paradigms that underpin GPs' attitudes toward (over-)medicalisation: underlying social factors, preventing medicalisation, managing uncertainties, sharing medical decision-making and thinking about care as a rationale. We suggest that these paradigms constitute a defensive posture against GPs' uncomfortable feelings. All five defensive paradigms were identified in our focus groups, echoing contemporary political debates on public health. This non-exhaustive framework forms the outline of what we call ordinary defensive medicine. GPs' uncomfortable feelings are the origin of their defensive solutions and the manifestation of their vulnerability. This professional vulnerability can be shared with the patient's vulnerability. In our view, this creates an opportunity to rediscover patient-doctor relationships and examine patients' and doctors' vulnerabilities together."There are many cases in which-though the signs of a confusion of tongues between the patient and his doctor are painfully present-there is apparently no open controversy. Some of these cases demonstrate the working of two other, often interlinked, factors. One is the patient's increasing anxiety and despair, resulting in more and more fervently clamouring demands for help. Often the doctor's response is guilt feelings and despair that his most conscientious, most carefully devised examinations do not seem to throw real light on the patient's "illness", that his most erudite, most modern, most circumspect therapy does not bring real relief." (Balint M. The Doctor, His Patient and the Illness. New York: International Universities; 2005. [1957].)"Theories about care put an unprecedented emphasis on vulnerability-taking up that challenge to transform what really counts in today's hospitals implies letting colleagues inside previously closely guarded professional boundaries" (2, our translation).

General practitioners can evaluate the material, social and health dimensions of patient social status.

OBJECTIVE: To identify which physician and patient characteristics are associated with physicians' estimation of their patient social status. DESIGN: Cross-sectional multicentric survey. SETTING: Fourty-seven primary care private offices in Western Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 2030 patients ≥ 16, who encountered a general practitioner (GP) between September 2010 and February 2011. PRIMARY OUTCOME: patient social status perceived by GPs, using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status, ranging from the bottom (0) to the top (10) of the social scale.Secondary outcome: Difference between GP's evaluation and patient's own evaluation of their social status. Potential patient correlates: material and social deprivation using the DiPCare-Q, health status using the EQ-5D, sources of income, and level of education. GP characteristics: opinion regarding patients' deprivation and its influence on health and care. RESULTS: To evaluate patient social status, GPs considered the material, social, and health aspects of deprivation, along with education level, and amount and type of income. GPs declaring a frequent reflexive consideration of their own prejudice towards deprived patients, gave a higher estimation of patients' social status (+1.0, p = 0.002). Choosing a less costly treatment for deprived patients was associated with a lower estimation (-0.7, p = 0.002). GP's evaluation of patient social status was 0.5 point higher than the patient's own estimate (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: GPs can perceive the various dimensions of patient social status, although heterogeneously, according partly to their own characteristics. Compared to patients' own evaluation, GPs overestimate patient social status.