Do gender differences affect the doctor-patient interaction during consultations in general practice? Results from the INTERMEDE study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to ascertain whether disagreement between GPs and patients on advice given on nutrition, exercise and weight loss is related to patient-doctor gender discordance. Our hypothesis is that a patient interacting with a physician of the same gender may perceive more social proximity, notably on health care beliefs and may be more inclined to trust them. METHODS: The analysis used the Intermede project's quantitative data collected via mirrored questionnaires at the end of the consultation. Multilevel logistic regressions were carried out to explore associations between patient-doctor gender discordance and their disagreement on advice given during the consultation adjusted on patients' and physicians' characteristics. The sample consists of 585 eligible patients and 27 GPs. RESULTS: Disagreement on advice given on nutrition was observed less often for female concordant dyads: OR = 0.25 (95% CI = 0.08-0.78), and for female doctors-male patients dyads: OR = 0.24 (95% CI = 0.07-0.84), taking the male concordant dyads as reference. For advice given on exercise, disagreement was found less often for female concordant dyads OR = 0.38 (95% CI = 0.15-0.98) and an interdoctor effect was found (P < 0.05). For advice given on weight loss, the probability of disagreement was significantly increased (OR: 2.87 95% CI = 1.29-6.41) when consultations consisted of female patient and male GP. CONCLUSION: Patient-doctor gender concordance/discordance is associated with their agreement/disagreement on advice given during the consultation. Physicians need to be conscious that their own demographic characteristics and perceptions might influence the quality of prevention counseling delivered to their patients.

[The places of death of people aged 80 and over in France]. / Les lieux de la fin de vie des personnes de 80 ans et plus en France.

While the places and causes of death are the subject of abundant literature, the circumstances surrounding the end of life, the ultimate phase of existence, remain largely not explored in France. The pathways through different living places taken by people aged 80 and over during the last month of existence and the factors associated with them are described thanks to the unique information and data collected by the "End of Life in France" survey.

Patient-physician interaction in general practice and health inequalities in a multidisciplinary study: design, methods and feasibility in the French INTERMEDE study.

BACKGROUND: The way in which patients and their doctors interact is a potentially important factor in optimal communication during consultations as well as treatment, compliance and follow-up care. The aim of this multidisciplinary study is to use both qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the 'black box' that is the interaction between the two parties during a general practice consultation, and to identify factors therein that may contribute to producing health inequalities. This paper outlines the original multidisciplinary methodology used, and the feasibility of this type of study. METHODS AND DESIGN: The study design combines methodologies on two separate samples in two phases. Firstly, a qualitative phase collected ethnographical and sociological data during consultation, followed by in-depth interviews with both patients and doctors independently. Secondly, a quantitative phase on a different sample of patients and physicians collected data via several questionnaires given to patients and doctors consisting of specific 'mirrored' questions asked post-consultation, as well as collecting information on patient and physician characteristics. DISCUSSION: The design and methodology used in this study were both successfully implemented, and readily accepted by doctors and patients alike. This type of multidisciplinary study shows great potential in providing further knowledge into the role of patient/physician interaction and its influence on maintaining or producing health inequalities. The next challenge in this study will be implementing the multidisciplinary approach during the data analysis.

Is perceived social distance between the patient and the general practitioner related to their disagreement on patient's health status?

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain whether disagreement between patients and general practitioners (GP) on the patient's health status varies according to their respective perceived social distance (PSD). METHODS: The analysis used the Intermede project's quantitative data collected from 585 patients and 27 doctors via mirrored questionnaires. GPs and patients ranked their own perceived social position (PSP) in society, and their patients' and their GP respectively. PSD was calculated as the PSP's subtraction from the patients' and GPs' assessments. RESULTS: Disagreement between GPs and patients regarding the patient's health status was associated with PSD by the GP whereas it was not associated with PSD by the patient. In the multilevel analysis, disagreement whereby GPs overestimate patient's health status increased within PSD by the GP: OR:2.9 (95%CI = 1.0-8.6, p = 0.055) for low PSD, OR:3.4 (95%CI = 1.1-10.2, p < 0.05) for moderate PSD and OR:3.8 (95%CI = 1.1-13.1, p < 0.05) for high PSD (reference: no distance). CONCLUSIONS: Patients perceived with a lower social position by their GP and who consider themselves to have poor health are less likely to be identified in the primary care system. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Physicians need to be conscious that their own perception influences the quality of the interaction with their patients, potentially resulting in unequal health care trajectories.

Do doctors and patients agree on cardiovascular-risk management recommendations post-consultation? The INTERMEDE study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding interactions between patients and GPs may be important for optimising communication during consultations and improving health promotion, notably in the management of cardiovascular risk factors. AIM: To explore the agreement between physicians and patients on the management of cardiovascular risk factors, and whether potential disagreement is linked to the patient's educational level. DESIGN OF STUDY: INTERMEDE is a cross-sectional study with data collection occurring at GPs' offices over a 2-week period in October 2007 in France. METHOD: Data were collected from both patients and doctors respectively via pre- and post-consultation questionnaires that were 'mirrored', meaning that GPs and patients were presented with the same questions. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 585 eligible patients (61% females) and 27 GPs. Agreement between patients and GPs was better for tangible aspects of the consultation, such as measuring blood pressure (κ = 0.84, standard deviation [SD] = 0.04), compared to abstract elements, like advising the patient on nutrition (κ = 0.36, SD = 0.04), and on exercise (κ = 0.56, SD = 0.04). Patients' age was closely related to level of education: half of those without any qualification were older than 65 years. The statistical association between education and agreement between physicians and patients disappeared after adjustment for age, but a trend remained. CONCLUSION: This study reveals misunderstandings between patients and GPs on the content of the consultation, especially for health-promotion outcomes. Taking patients' social characteristics into account, notably age and educational level, could improve mutual understanding between patients and GPs, and therefore, the quality of care.

Do general practitioners overestimate the health of their patients with lower education?

This study sought to ascertain whether disagreement between patients and physicians on the patients' health status varies according to patients' education level. INTERMEDE is a cross-sectional multicentre study. Data were collected from both patients and doctors via pre- and post consultation questionnaires at the GP's office over a two-week period in October 2007 in 3 regions of France. The sample consists of 585 eligible patients (61% women) and 27 GPs. A significant association between agreement/disagreement between GP and patient on the patient's health status and patient's education level was observed: 75% of patients with a high education level agreed with their GP compared to 50% of patients with a low level of education. Patients and GPs disagreed where patients with the lowest education level said that their health was worse relative to their doctor's evaluation 37% of the time, versus 16% and 14% for those with a medium or high education level respectively. A multilevel multivariate analysis revealed that patients with a low educational level and medium educational level respectively were at higher risk of being overestimated by GP's in respect of self-reported health even if controlling for confounders. These findings suggest that people with a lower education level who consider themselves to have poor health are less reliably identified as such in the primary care system. This could potentially result in lack of advice and treatment for these patients and ultimately the maintenance of health inequalities.

Are health problems systemic? Politics of access and choice under Beveridge and Bismarck systems.

Industrialised countries face similar challenges for improving the performance of their health system. Nevertheless, the nature and intensity of the reforms required are largely determined by each country's basic social security model. Most reforms in Beveridge-type systems have sought to increase choice and reduce waiting times while those in major Bismarck-type systems have focused on cost control by constraining the choice of providers. This paper looks at the main differences in performance of five countries and reviews their recent reform experience, focusing on three questions: Are there systematic differences in performance of Beveridge and Bismarck-type systems? What are the key parameters of healthcare system, which underlie these differences? Have recent reforms been effective? Our results do not suggest that one system-type performs consistently better than the other. In part, this may be explained by the heterogeneity in organisational design and governance both within and across these systems. Insufficient attention to those structural differences may explain the limited success of a number of recent reforms. Thus, while countries may share similar problems in terms of improving healthcare performance, adopting a 'copy-and-paste' approach to healthcare reform is likely to be ineffective.