Dataset Information

Familial colonoscopic screening: how do French general practitioners deal with patients and their high-risk relatives. A qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Screening of colorectal cancer (CRC) can reduce incidence and mortality. First-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with CRC or advanced adenoma before the age of 65 (index patients) are at increased risk of CRC; however, the guidelines for screening of FDRs by colonoscopy are poorly followed.

Objectives

The present study, conducted in the context of the COLOR3 interventional study project, aimed to explore the positioning of general practitioners (GPs) in familial CRC screening in France.

Methods

From February 2020 to April 2021, 35 semi-structured interviews with GPs of index patients and/or their FDRs were conducted by telephone. The full-data transcribed corpus was subjected to horizontal thematic analysis.

Results

Knowledge and compliance with the guidelines vary greatly between GPs. Although initiating the diagnostic process, GPs do not consider themselves as actors in the flow of information concerning familial risk. Their accompaniment of index patients in this role varies. GPs should overcome barriers to implementing colonoscopic screening for FDRs. They underline the importance of exploring family history, but they lack the time and doubt the reliability of the information given by FDRs.

Conclusion

Challenges include circumventing gaps in knowledge, adherence to guidelines and improving family history updates. The GPs interviewed suggested personalised guidelines in specialists' reports to initiate information campaigns raising awareness of familial risk, and to enhance coordination between organised screening and familial screening.

SUBMITTER: Ingrand I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9272923 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCervical cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality due to uterine cervical cancer (UCC). However, inequalities in participation in UCC screening exist, especially according to age and social status. Considering the current situation in France regarding the ongoing organized UCC screening campaign, we aimed to assess general practitioners' (GPs) and gynaecologists' preferences for actions designed to reduce screening inequalities.MethodsFrench physicians' preferences to UCC screening modalities was assessed using a discrete choice experiment. A national cross-sectional questionnaire was sent between September and October 2014 to 500 randomly selected physicians, and numerically to all targeted physicians working in the French region Midi-Pyrénées. Practitioners were offered 11 binary choices of organized screening scenarios in order to reduce inequalities in UCC screening participation. Each scenario was based on five attributes corresponding to five ways to enhance participation in UCC screening while reducing screening inequalities.ResultsAmong the 123 respondents included, practitioners voted for additional interventions targeting non-screened women overall (p <? 0.05), including centralized invitations sent from a central authority and involving the mentioned attending physician, or providing attending physicians with the lists of unscreened women among their patients. However, they rejected the specific targeting of women over 50?years old (p <? 0.01) or living in deprived areas (p <? 0.05). Only GPs were in favour of allowing nurses to perform Pap smears, but both GPs and gynaecologists rejected self-collected oncogenic papillomavirus testing.ConclusionsFrench practitioners tended to value the traditional principle of universalism. As well as rejecting self-collected oncogenic papillomavirus testing, their reluctance to support the principle of proportionate universalism relying on additional interventions addressing differences in socioeconomic status needs further evaluation. As these two concepts have already been recommended as secondary development leads for the French national organized screening campaign currently being implemented, the adherence of practitioners and the adaptation of these concepts are necessary conditions for reducing inequalities in health care.

Project description:We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of burnout among French general practitioners in private practice and to study the risk and protective factors of burnout. A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted with French GPs working in a private practice in France who were asked to fulfil an internet questionnaire. We used the secure internet application REDCap®. Exclusion criteria were only working in a hospital, substitute doctors, and internship students. There was a putative sample size of 88,886 GPs. We retrieved the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), occupational characteristics (type of installation, emergency regulated shifts, night shifts, university supervisor, weekly hours worked, seniority), and personal characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, and number of children. We included 1926 GPs among the 2602 retrieved questionnaires. A total of 44.8% of French liberal GPs were experiencing burnout, with 4.8% (95%CI 3.9-5.9%) experiencing severe burnout. The risk factors of severe burnout were male gender (RR = 1.91, 95%CI 1.15-3.16), working in a suburban area (5.23, 2.18-12.58), and having more than 28 appointments per day (1.95, 1.19-3.19). Working more than 50 h weekly showed a tendency to increase the risk of severe burnout (1.55, 0.93-2.59, p = 0.095), with a significant increase in the risk of low and moderate burnout (1.31, 1.02-1.67 and 1.86, 1.34-2.57, respectively). Protective factors were mainly resident training, which decreased the risk of both low, moderate, and severe burnout (0.65, 0.51-0.83; 0.66, 0.48-0.92; and 0.42, 95%CI 0.23-0.76, respectively). Performing home visits decreased the risk of severe burnout (0.25, 0.13-0.47), as did group practice for intermediate level of burnout (0.71, 0.51-0.96). GPs are at a high risk of burnout, with nearly half of them in burnout, with burnout predominantly affecting males and those between the ages of 50 and 60 years old. The main risk factors were a high workload with more than 28 appointments per day or 50 h of work per week, and the main protective factors were related to social cohesion such having a teaching role and working in a group practice with back-office support.

Project description:AimsHow general practitioners (GPs) manage dyskalaemia is currently unknown. This study aimed at describing GP practices regarding hypokalaemia or hyperkalaemia diagnosis and management in their outpatients.Methods and resultsA telephone survey was conducted among French GPs with a 20-item questionnaire (16 closed-ended questions and 12 open-ended questions) regarding their usual management of hypokalaemia or hyperkalaemia patients, both broadly and more specifically in patients with heart failure and/or chronic kidney disease and/or in patients treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme/angiotensin receptor blockers or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. We aimed to interview 500 GPs spread geographically throughout France. This descriptive survey results are presented as mean ± standard deviation (if normally distributed or as median and inter-quartile range if the distribution was skewed). Categorical variables are expressed as frequencies and proportions (%). A total of 500 GPs participated in the study. Dyskalaemia thresholds (for diagnosis and intervention) and management patterns were highly heterogeneous. The mean ± SD (range) potassium level leading to 'intervene' was 5.32 ± 0.34 mmol/L (4.5-6.5) for hyperkalaemia and 3.23 ± 0.34 mmol/L (2.0-6.5) for hypokalaemia. Potassium levels leading to refer the patient to the emergency department (ED) were 6.14 ± 0.55 (4.5-10) and 2.69 ± 0.42 mmol/L (1-4), respectively. Potassium binders (51-65%) or potassium supplements (67-74%) were frequently used to manage hyperkalaemia or hypokalaemia. GPs uncommonly referred their dyskalaemic patients to cardiologists or nephrologists (or to the emergency department, if the latter was deemed necessary owing to the severity of the dyskalaemia). We identified an association between the close vicinity of GP office from an ED and 'referring a heart failure patient' (19.2% with ED vs. 8.6% without ED) and referring a heart failure and chronic kidney disease patient on mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (16.7% with ED vs. 9.3% without ED). Although the majority (67%) of GPs had an electrocardiogram on hand, it was rarely used (14%) in dyskalaemic patients. Subgroup analyses considering gender, age of the participating GPs, and high-income/low-income regions did not identify specific patterns regarding the multidimensional aspect of dyskalaemia management.ConclusionsOwing to the considerable heterogeneity of French GP practices toward dyskalaemia diagnosis and management approaches, there is a likely need to standardize (potentially enabled by therapeutic algorithms) practices.

Project description:Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer is controversial. There are unresolved tensions and disagreements amongst experts, and clinical guidelines conflict. This both reflects and generates significant uncertainty about the appropriateness of screening. Little is known about general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives and experiences in relation to PSA testing of asymptomatic men. In this paper we asked the following questions: (1) What are the primary sources of uncertainty as described by GPs in the context of PSA testing? (2) How do GPs experience and respond to different sources of uncertainty?This was a qualitative study that explored general practitioners' current approaches to, and reasoning about, PSA testing of asymptomatic men. We draw on accounts generated from interviews with 69 general practitioners located in Australia (n = 40) and the United Kingdom (n = 29). The interviews were conducted in 2013-2014. Data were analysed using grounded theory methods. Uncertainty in PSA testing was identified as a core issue.Australian GPs reported experiencing substantially more uncertainty than UK GPs. This seemed partly explainable by notable differences in conditions of practice between the two countries. Using Han et al's taxonomy of uncertainty as an initial framework, we first outline the different sources of uncertainty GPs (mostly Australian) described encountering in relation to prostate cancer screening and what the uncertainty was about. We then suggest an extension to Han et al's taxonomy based on our analysis of data relating to the varied ways that GPs manage uncertainties in the context of PSA testing. We outline three broad strategies: (1) taking charge of uncertainty; (2) engaging others in managing uncertainty; and (3) transferring the responsibility for reducing or managing some uncertainties to other parties.Our analysis suggests some GPs experienced uncertainties associated with ambiguous guidance and the complexities of their situation as professionals with responsibilities to patients as considerably burdensome. This raises important questions about responsibility for uncertainty. In Australia in particular they feel insufficiently supported by the health care system to practice in ways that are recognisably consistent with 'evidence based' professional standards and appropriate for patients. More work is needed to clarify under what circumstances and how uncertainty should be communicated. Closer attention to different types and aspects of the uncertainty construct could be useful.