Translating Planetary Health Principles Into Sustainable Primary Care Services.

Global anthropogenic environmental degradations such as climate change are increasingly recognized as critical public health issues, on which human beings should urgently act in order to preserve sustainable conditions of living on Earth. "Planetary Health" is a breakthrough concept and emerging research field based on the recognition of the interdependent relationships between living organisms-both human and non-human-and their ecosystems. In that regards, there have been numerous calls by healthcare professionals for a greater recognition and adoption of Planetary Health perspective. At the same time, current Western healthcare systems are facing their limits when it comes to providing affordable, equitable and sustainable healthcare services. Furthermore, while hospital-centrism remains the dominant model of Western health systems, primary care and public health continue to be largely undervalued by policy makers. While healthcare services will have to adapt to the sanitary impacts of environmental degradations, they should also ambition to accompany and accelerate the societal transformations required to re-inscribe the functioning of human societies within planetary boundaries. The entire health system requires profound transformations to achieve this, with obviously a key role for public health. But we argue that the first line of care represented by primary care might also have an important role to play, with its holistic, interdisciplinary, and longitudinal approach to patients, strongly grounded in their living environments and communities. This will require however to redefine the roles, activities and organization of primary care actors to better integrate socio-environmental determinants of health, strengthen interprofessional collaborations, including non-medical collaborations and more generally develop new, environmentally-centered models of care. Furthermore, a planetary health perspective translated in primary care will require the strengthening of synergies between institutions and actors in the field of health and sustainability.

How do general practitioners put preventive care recommendations into practice? A cross-sectional study in Switzerland and France.

OBJECTIVES: We previously identified that general practitioners (GPs) in French-speaking regions of Europe had a variable uptake of common preventive recommendations. In this study, we describe GPs' reports of how they put different preventive recommendations into practice. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study conducted in 2015 in Switzerland and France. 3400 randomly selected GPs were asked to complete a postal (n=1100) or online (n=2300) questionnaire. GPs who exclusively practiced complementary and alternative medicine were not eligible for the study. 764 GPs (response rate: postal 47%, online 11%) returned the questionnaire (428 in Switzerland and 336 in France). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We investigated how the GPs performed five preventive practices (screening for dyslipidaemia, colorectal and prostate cancer, identification of hazardous alcohol consumption and brief intervention), examining which age group they selected, the screening frequency, the test they used, whether they favoured shared decision for prostate cancer screening and their definition of hazardous alcohol use. RESULTS: A large variability was observed in the way in which GPs provide these practices. 41% reported screening yearly for cholesterol, starting and stopping at variable ages. 82% did not use any test to identify hazardous drinking. The most common responses for defining hazardous drinking were, for men, ≥21 drinks/week (24%) and ≥4 drinks/occasion for binge drinking (20%), and for women, ≥14 drinks/week (28%) and ≥3 drinks/occasion (21%). Screening for colorectal cancer, mainly with colonoscopy in Switzerland (86%) and stool-based tests in France (93%), was provided every 10 years in Switzerland (65%) and 2 years in France (91%) to patients between 50 years (87%) and 75 years (67%). Prostate cancer screening, usually with shared decision (82%), was provided yearly (62%) to patients between 50 years (74%) and 75-80 years (32%-34%). CONCLUSIONS: The large diversity in the way these practices are provided needs to be addressed, as it could be related to some misunderstandingof the current guidelines, to barriers for guideline uptake or, more likely, to the absence of agreement between the various recommendations.

Hemoglobin Levels and the Risk of Malaria in Papua New Guinean Infants: A Nested Cohort Study.

Studies are available that assess the risk of malaria in accordance to the body's iron store and the systematic iron supplementation of preschool children. However, only a few studies evaluated the temporal association between hemoglobin and malaria and their results are opposing. A total of 1,650 3-month-old Papua New Guinean infants were enrolled in this study and followed-up for 12 months. The risk of malaria was assessed in all children every 3 months and with each episode of fever. The incidence of clinical malaria between 3 and 15 months of age was 249 cases per 1,000 infants per year. After adjustment for potential confounding factors, a decrease of 1 g/dL of hemoglobin was associated with a nonsignificant increase of 11% for risk of malaria infection (hazard ratio, 1.11, 95% confidence interval; CI, 0.99-1.25, P = 0.076). Only children with severe anemia (hemoglobin < 8.0 g/dL) at baseline were at higher risk of malaria infection (hazard ratio, 1.72, 95% CI, 1.08-2.76, P = 0.023) during the follow-up year compared with the control group (Hemoglobin > 10.0 g/dL). This association was not statistically significant if only clinical malaria episodes were taken into account (hazard ratio, 1.42, 95% CI, 0.77-2.61, P = 0.26). Our study suggests that infants with lower hemoglobin levels are not protected against malaria infection. Further research that examines the risk of malaria in relation to both hemoglobin and iron store levels would be important to better understand this complex interaction.

Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners' Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based Survey: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Web-based surveys have become a new and popular method for collecting data, but only a few studies have directly compared postal and Web-based surveys among physicians, and none to our knowledge among general practitioners (GPs). OBJECTIVE: Our aim is to compare two modes of survey delivery (postal and Web-based) in terms of participation rates, response times, and completeness of questionnaires in a study assessing GPs' preventive practices. METHODS: This randomized study was conducted in Western Switzerland (Geneva and Vaud) and in France (Alsace and Pays de la Loire) in 2015. A random selection of community-based GPs (1000 GPs in Switzerland and 2400 GPs in France) were randomly allocated to receive a questionnaire about preventive care activities either by post (n=700 in Switzerland, n=400 in France) or by email (n=300 in Switzerland, n=2000 in France). Reminder messages were sent once in the postal group and twice in the Web-based group. Any GPs practicing only complementary and alternative medicine were excluded from the study. RESULTS: Among the 3400 contacted GPs, 764 (22.47%, 95% CI 21.07%-23.87%) returned the questionnaire. Compared to the postal group, the participation rate in the Web-based group was more than four times lower (246/2300, 10.70% vs 518/1100, 47.09%, P<.001), but median response time was much shorter (1 day vs 1-3 weeks, P<.001) and the number of GPs having fully completed the questionnaire was almost twice as high (157/246, 63.8% vs 179/518, 34.6%, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Web-based surveys offer many advantages such as reduced response time, higher completeness of data, and large cost savings, but our findings suggest that postal surveys can be still considered for GP research. The use of mixed-mode approaches is probably a good strategy to increase GPs' participation in surveys while reducing costs.