Motivations and willingness of general practitioners in France to participate in primary care research as investigators

Long-Term Consequences of Spirometry During Military Routine Medical Examinations on Smoking Cessation Compared to Minimal Advice

BACKGROUND

Smoking kills 8 million people a year worldwide. It is the most prevalent cause of death in France by cancer, cardiovascular, or respiratory diseases. Minimal advice consists in asking patients who smoke if they are interested in quitting. It is effective in reducing smoking. The French High Health Authority recommends its systematic use with patients, whatever their reason for seeking treatment. The beneficial effect of spirometry on smoking cessation is controversial. The objective of our study was to measure the consequences of spirometry associated with minimal advice, compared with only minimal advice in soldiers seen during a routine medical examination.

METHODS

Our prospective, longitudinal, open, multicenter, controlled, randomized study was conducted among French military smokers presenting for an occupational medicine visit. Each participant received, depending on their group (intervention or control), either minimal advice associated with an evaluation of lung function by mini-spirometer, or only minimal advice. Follow-up visits were performed at 6 and 12 months. The primary objective was self-reported tobacco use cessation at 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 267 participants (126 in the intervention group and 141 for the control arm) were included in 10 centers between June 2019 and June 2020. The response rate was 75.6% at 6 months. The cessation rates were 17% and 18% in the intervention and control groups, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.9). The cessation rate in the general population was 13% at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Spirometry does not seem to influence smoke cessation on a military population at 6 months. The overall cessation rate in our study was well in excess of the 3-6% expected from only providing minimal which is underused in general practice and should be encouraged.

Perceived importance and interest in research by Chilean primary care providers

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) are relevant stakeholders for primary care research (PCR).

OBJECTIVE

We report the perceived importance and interest in PCR of a national sample of Chilean PCPs.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study targeting Chilean PCPs. An electronic survey assessing perceived relevance of PCR, research training and experience, training interests, and demographics was disseminated through emails and WhatsApp messages. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data. Logistic regression models were used to estimate adjusted probabilities and 95% confidence intervals for high interest in PCR, high interest in using research methods, and high interest in receiving research training, and predictors of these outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 387 providers completed the online survey. Only 26.4% of PCPs had research experience as a principal or co-investigator. However, most clinicians perceived PCR as very important (92.5%) and were interested in using research methods (90.7%) and receiving training (94.3%). There were no statistically significant differences in these perceptions between provider's discipline, role, sex, age, and geographical location after adjusting for covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite few Chilean PCPs have research training, a large majority perceive it as important, are interested in using it in their practice and would like to receive training.

Primary care involvement in clinical research - prerequisites, motivators, and barriers: results from a study series

BACKGROUND

Long-term reinforcement in the role of primary care and improvement the healthcare system as a whole requires the involvement of GPs in clinical research processes. However, many clinical studies fail due to failure to achieve sample population targets amongst GPs and their patients. This issue has been identified and discussed, but effective strategies to overcome it are still lacking. One of the reasons is that the positions, requirements, and experiences of GPs on participating in clinical research have hardly been examined up to now.

METHODS

The years 2021 and 2022 saw three quantitative and qualitative surveys amongst GPs in Germany with the aim of shedding light on the attitudes, experiences, and potential issues regarding the involvement of primary care in clinical research projects and participation in cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) in a general sense. This overview summarises and abstracts conclusions gained from the exploratory series of studies and compares the results with the current research situation. From here, this contribution will then develop an approach towards optimising the integration of GPs into clinical research.

RESULTS

Most of the GPs asked associated clinical research with opportunities and potential such as closing gaps in healthcare, using evidence-based instruments, optimising diagnostic and therapeutic management, and reinforcement of multiprofessional healthcare. Even so, many GPs unsure as to how far primary care in particular would stand to benefit from studies of this type in the long term. Respondents were also divided on willingness to participate in clinical research. GPs having already participated in Innovation Fund projects generally saw a benefit regarding intervention and cost-benefit relationship. However, some also reported major hurdles and stress factors such as excessive documentation and enrolment requirements, greater interference in practice routines, and sometimes poor integration into project processes such as in communication and opportunities to play an active role in the project.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from the studies presented provide indications as to how GPs perceive clinical research projects and cRCTs as a whole and from their existing project experience, and on the requirements that studies would have to meet for GPs to be willing to participate. In particular, making sure that clinical studies fully conform with GPs would play a major role; this especially applies to freedom to make medical decisions, limitation of documentation obligations, interference in regular practice routine, greater involvement in research planning, and long-term reinforcement in the role of primary care. Clinical research projects and cRCTs should be planned, designed, and communicated for clear and visible relevance to everyday primary care.

Knowledge gap in a cross section of Irish general practitioners prescribing denosumab for osteoporosis

BACKGROUND

Denosumab is commonly used by general practitioners (GPs) in Ireland to treat osteoporosis though drug holidays are not recommended with rebound bone loss and risk of vertebral fractures if stopped. We aimed to investigate GP practice and knowledge regarding denosumab including use and reasons for use, therapy duration, blood monitoring and recommended vitamin D status/calcium intake on treatment, staff administering, methods of recall, delays in receiving injections, management of and awarenes of guidelines if stopped, reasons for stopping and concerns about same.

METHODS

GPs were contacted (n = 846) by email and invited to complete an online anonymous survey comprising 25 questions in January 2022. We collated responses and explored for differences between GP principals/trainers and GP trainees.

RESULTS

There were 146 responses. Sixty-seven percent were female and 50% were GP principal/trainers. Forty-three percent used denosumab as a first line therapy citing convenience in 32% of cases. Half (50%) envisaged therapy for 3-5 years and 15% lifelong use. A fifth (21%) had no concerns about it being stopped (11% trainors vs 31% trainees, P = 0.002). If stopped, 41% cited opting for a drug holiday with monitoring. Forty percent of GPs gave patients a reminder card for the next injection and 27% had an alert system.

CONCLUSION

We identified a knowledge gap in denosumab prescribing among a sample of Irish GPs. Findings suggest a need for education to increase awareness around denosumab use and to consider recall systems in GP practices as suggested elsewhere to ensure persistence with therapy.

Expectations of general practitioners on a practice based research network in Germany- a qualitative study within the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet)

BACKGROUND

Despite general practitioners' (GPs') key role in Germany`s primary health care, clinical research in general practice is scarce. Clinical research is mainly conducted at inpatient facilities, although their results are rarely transferable. German GPs have no extra time or funding for research, as well as limited research training. To support clinical research in German primary health care, practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are developed. As they will be based on an active involvement of GPs, we need more information on GPs` participation-readiness. The aim of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to participation in the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet) from the GPs`perspective before clinical trials will be performed.

METHODS

We have performed semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of 20 Bavarian GPs in 2022 under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Transcriptions were analysed according to Kuckartz` qualitative content analysis. The five domains of the CFIR framework served as initial deductive codes.

RESULTS

N = 14 interviewees already agreed to participate in BayFoNet, whereas n = 6 interviewees opted not to participate in BayFoNet at the time of data collection. Main facilitators to conduct clinical research within BayFoNet were the motivation to contribute to evidence strength and quality in general practice, professional development and training of practice staff, as well as networking. Barriers for an active participation were bad experiences with previous clinical studies and lack of resources.

CONCLUSIONS

PBRNS in Germany have to be promoted and the entire practice team has to be involved at an early stage of development. Professional training of general practice staff and a living network might enhance engagement. Participatory approaches could help to develop acceptable and feasible study designs. Furthermore, PBRNs should support patient recruitment and data collection in general practices and disseminate the results of their research projects regularly to maintain GPs` engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

[Medical care in GP practices during the Covid-19 pandemic: A questionnaire-based survey among general practitioners and medical practice assistants asking for their opinion about changes, needs and burdens]

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus pandemic did not only result in changes in the provision and utilization of health care services in general practice but also in an increased workload for physicians and medical practice assistants. The VeCo practice study retrospectively explores the experiences of both professional groups two years after the start of the pandemic.

METHODS

In March and April 2022, general practitioners and medical practice assistants in the three German federal states of Berlin, Brandenburg and Thuringia were asked to complete a paper-based questionnaire.

RESULTS

657 general practitioners and 762 medical practice assistants completed the questionnaire. Both professional groups agreed to statements indicating a reduction in regular health care provisions. Nevertheless, 74% of the physicians and 82.9% of the medical practice assistants considered the health care provided to their patients during the pandemic as good. This was only possible through considerable additional effort and stress. While more than half of both groups reported that work was still enjoyable, three quarters of both groups stated that the challenges arising from the pandemic outstripped their capacity. Both groups would like to receive more recognition from society (medical practice assistants 93.2%, general practitioners 85.3%) and from their patients (87.7% and 69.9%, respectively).

DISCUSSION

General practitioners and medical practice assistants reduced regular health care provision but were still able to maintain a good quality of care for their patients during the pandemic. It became clear that more appreciation and adequate financial compensation are necessary to ensure long-term sustainability of GP care.

CONCLUSION

The subjective view of general practitioners and medical practice assistants on their health care provision shows that appreciation and adequate financial renumeration, particularly when working under most difficult conditions, are necessary to increase the attractiveness of a career in general practice, for both physicians and medical practice assistants.

Motivaciones y limitaciones de los médicos especialistas para hacer investigación clínica en un hospital de alta complejidad en Colombia

Introducción: los médicos clínicos investigadores son necesarios para el desarrollo de la literatura médica sobre la cual se soporta el ejercicio clínico, y así contribuyen a la calidad del acto médico y del sistema de salud. Se requiere mayor investigación de sus motivaciones y barreras para hacerlo. Objetivo: describir las motivaciones y limitaciones que los médicos especialistas enfrentan para poder convertirse en investigadores en un hospital privado de alta complejidad en Colombia. Materiales y métodos: se realizó un estudio hermenéutico con técnicas de la teoría fundamentada, con 30 entrevistas semiestructuradas realizadas a 20 médicos especialistas del Hospital Pablo Tobón Uribe. El análisis utilizó codificación abierta y se agruparon los códigos en categorías descriptivas, al identificar propiedades y dimensiones de la teoría fundamentada. La codificación axial permitió describir las tensiones entre las motivaciones y las limitaciones para investigar. Resultados: se identificaron como motivaciones para investigar el reconocimiento y el prestigio profesional e institucional gracias al respaldo del Hospital, además de la remuneración económica adicional, tanto por estudios de la industria farmacéutica como propios. Como barrera se destacó la precaria formación en investigación, que se suma al ambiente competitivo entre colegas y a las tareas administrativas y protocolizadas de los estudios, lo cual que genera desinterés. Conclusiones: a pesar de facilitar y respaldar el desarrollo de la investigación en esta institución, en el contexto del país aún no hay una fuerte cultura investigativa que promueva e incentive a los profesionales de la salud a desarrollar investigación de manera independiente o institucional, pues con frecuencia las limitaciones sobrepasan las motivaciones para hacerlo.

Implementing an outpatient clinical trial on COVID-19 treatment in an emergency epidemic context: a mixed methods study among operational and research stakeholders within the Coverage trial, Bordeaux (France)

BACKGROUND

The emergency set-up and implementation of outpatient clinical trials on epidemic emerging infectious diseases such as COVID-19 raise many issues in terms of research structuration, regulations, and health systems organization. We aimed to describe the experience and points of view of different stakeholders involved in a French home-based outpatient trial on COVID-19 and to identify the early barriers and facilitators to the trial implementation.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods study in July 2020. A self-administered questionnaire was emailed to 213 clinical, operational and research stakeholders involved in the Coverage trial; individual semi-directed interviews were conducted among 14 stakeholders. Questionnaire data and written interview notes are presented together by key theme.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty six stakeholders responded to the questionnaire. 53.4% did not have prior experience in clinical research. The motivation of most stakeholders to participate in the Coverage trial was to feel useful during the pandemic. 87.9% agreed that the trial had an unusual set-up timeframe, and many regretted a certain lack of regulatory flexibility. Mobile medical teams and specific professional skills were perceived as instrumental for outpatient research.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a home-based outpatient clinical trial on COVID-19 was perceived as relevant and innovative although requiring important adaptations of usual professional responsibilities and standard research procedures. Lessons learned from the Coverage trial underline the need for improved networks between hospital and community medicine, and call for a dedicated and reactive outpatient research platform on emerging or threatening infectious diseases.

Effect of Virtual Reality on Pediatric Pain and Fear During Procedures Involving Needles: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Virtual reality (VR) is used as a distraction measure during painful clinical procedures associated with the use of needles. These procedures include vaccinations, blood draws, or the administration of medications, which can cause children to feel increased levels of pain and fear.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to collect and analyze the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of VR as a tool to distract children from pain and fear during needle procedures as compared to that of standard techniques.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs with participants younger than 21 years who underwent needle procedures in which the main distraction measure used was VR and where the main outcome measure was pain. The databases searched included the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane libraries. In this systematic review, the studies were analyzed by applying the Critical Appraisal Skills Program guide in Spanish and the Jadad scale. In the meta-analysis, the effect size of the studies was analyzed based on the results for pain and fear in children.

RESULTS

From 665 unique search results, 21 studies were included in this systematic review, most of which reported low methodological quality. The study sample cohorts ranged from a minimum of 15 participants to a maximum of 220 participants. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis. The global effect of using VR as a distraction measure was a significant reduction in pain (inverse variance [IV] -2.37, 95% CI -3.20 to -1.54; Z=5.58; P<.001) and fear (IV -1.26, 95% CI -1.89 to -0.63; Z=3.92; P<.001) in children in the experimental groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the studies was mostly low. The main limitations were the impossibility of blinding the participants and health care personnel to the VR intervention. Nonetheless, the use of VR as a distraction measure was effective in reducing pain and fear in children during procedures involving needles.

General practitioners' willingness to participate in research networks in Germany

OBJECTIVES

To investigate general practitioners' (GPs') willingness to participate in long-term medical research and in research networks (RNs).

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional survey among German GPs around Halle-Wittenberg and Leipzig in 2020.

SUBJECTS

Random sample of 905 GPs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

Response rate 37%, 69% female. Overall, 57% were interested in participating in medical research, 34% in an active role in a RN. Interest in RN participation was positively associated with male sex, younger age, previous experiences in medical research, being involved in teaching undergraduates, and having qualification in a further specialty. Main motivators were improving patient care, giving a more realistic picture of GP care, and carrying out research on topics within their own interest areas and a reliable contact person at the leading institution. Most GPs were not afraid of reduced earnings; however, time investment was the main barrier for participation. GPs were willing to dedicate twice as much time to research when remuneration was offered. High rated topics were polypharmacy, chronic diseases, drug safety and adverse drug reactions.

CONCLUSION

GPs are interested to participate in practice-based research. The study results providing useful and generalizable insights in barriers and motivators should be considered when building and running GP-RNs.KEY POINTSThere is a difference between general practitioners' (GPs') overall interest in clinical research and their job and socio-demographic related readiness to participate in research networks (RNs).GPs are interested in RNs when it is a resource of and leading to enhanced patient-oriented care.GPs are willing to dedicate twice as much time to research when remunerated.GPs need a reliable counterpart within the leading institution.

Talking about premature ejaculation in primary care: the GET UP cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Premature ejaculation (PE) is the most common sexual dysfunction in males. A previous qualitative study identified six communication strategies described by GPs to tackle this topic during consultations.

AIM

To determine whether these six strategies are more effective than usual care for promoting discussion about PE between patients and their GPs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cluster randomised controlled trial, stratified in four French regions, with an intervention group (GPs who received a training session on the six communication strategies) and a control group (routine medical care). Participants were males aged 18-80 years consulting for a sexual, urogenital, or psychological reason.

METHOD

The efficacy of the training session in communication skills, compared with usual care, was evaluated by determining the percentage of patients who discussed PE with their GP (primary outcome). The percentage of enrolled patients with PE was calculated using a cut-off score >9 of the premature ejaculation diagnostic tool (PEDT) completed by the enrolled patients at Week 4 after the consultation. The quality-of-life changes were evaluated as the SF-12 scale score difference between baseline and Week 4 post-consultation.

RESULTS

In total, 130 patients were included by 32 GPs (n = 16 in the intervention and n = 16 in the control group). The percentage of patients who discussed PE was higher in the intervention group than in the control group (42.0% versus 4.9%, absolute difference = 37.1%; 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 24% to 50%, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Training GPs in communication strategies about PE improves its detection.

Recruitment in Health Services Research-A Study on Facilitators and Barriers for the Recruitment of Community-Based Healthcare Providers

In health services research, the recruitment of patients is oftentimes conducted by community-based healthcare providers. Therefore, the recruitment of these healthcare providers is a crucial prerequisite for successful patient recruitment. However, recruiting community-based healthcare providers poses a major challenge and little is known about its influencing factors. This qualitative study is conducted alongside a health services research intervention trial. The aim of the study is to investigate facilitators and barriers for the recruitment of community-based healthcare providers. A qualitative text analysis of documents and semi-structured interviews with recruiting staff is performed. An inductive–deductive category-based approach is used. Our findings identify intrinsic motivation and interest in the trial’s aims and goals as important facilitating factors in healthcare provider recruitment. Beyond that, extrinsic motivation generated through financial incentives or collegial obligation emerged as a conflicting strategy. While extrinsic motivation might aid in the initial enrollment of healthcare providers, it rarely resulted in active trial participation in the long run. Therefore, extrinsic motivational factors should be handled with care when recruiting healthcare providers for health services research intervention trials.

[Implications for health services research in GP practices using the example of an intervention study on palliative care]

INTRODUCTION

So far there has been little evidence of the extent to which project steps can affect the timing and successful implementation of research projects in general practitioner (GP) practices. Using the example of an intervention study on palliative care, the aim of this article is to report a) how the overall course of the project turned out compared to the original planning, and b) what recommendations can be derived to promote efficient implementation of intervention studies in GP practices.

METHODS

In two workshops each, GP practice teams selected specific measures to improve their palliative care and tested them during a four-month implementation phase. In order to track the progress of the project, the times at which the practice teams reported their participation in the study, the individual project steps and the contacts were documented and descriptively analysed using Microsoft Excel.

RESULTS

Due to a high willingness of practice teams to participate in the intervention study, recruitment was completed on time. The overall duration of the project was extended due to an increased workload for the preparation of an unexpectedly high number of selected measures to improve palliative care.

DISCUSSION

Conducting intervention studies in GP practices is promising if practice teams take an active and co-determining role during the entire research process. Research projects can best be implemented if they involve minimal time commitment for the practice teams, and if continuous personal support from the study team is ensured.

CONCLUSION

When planning future intervention studies with a high participatory share of GP practice teams, it is advisable to take into account potential additional work for the preparation and further development of intervention measures.

Recruiting general practitioners and patients with dementia into a cluster randomised controlled trial: strategies, barriers and facilitators

Background

Recruitment of general practitioners (GPs) and their patients is reported as one of the most challenging steps when undertaking primary care research. The present paper describes the recruitment process of a cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aiming to improve dementia care in the primary care setting.

Methods

Recruitment data was analysed descriptively using frequency tables to investigate comparisons of recruitment rates and results of different recruitment strategies as well as reasons for participation and non-participation of GPs, patients with dementia (PwD) and their caregivers.

Results

Over a period of 23 months, N = 28 GPs were successfully included in the cRCT. This represents an overall recruitment rate of 4.6%. The most efficient strategy in terms of high response and low labour-intensity involved the dissemination of calls for participation in a GP research network. Most frequently reported reasons for GP’s participation were Improvement of patient’s well-being (n = 22, 79%) followed by Interest in dementia research (n = 18, 64%). The most common reasons for non-participation were Lack of time (n = 71, 34%) followed by Not interested in participation (n = 63, 30%). On a patient level, N = 102 PwD were successfully recruited. On average, each GP referred about n = 7 PwD (range: 1–17; mdn = 6; IQR = 3.5) and successfully recruited about n = 4 PwD (range: 1–11; mdn = 3; IQR = 3.5).

Conclusion

First, our findings propose GP research networks as a promising strategy to promote recruitment and participation of GPs and their patients in research. Second, present findings highlight the importance of including GPs and their interests in specific research topics in early stages of research in order to ensure a successful recruitment. Finally, results do not support cold calls as a successful strategy in the recruitment of GPs.

Trial registration

The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry (Trial registration number: ISRCTN15854413). Registered 01 April 2019.

Exploring primary care physician experiences conducting practice-based research on adult vaccination: a qualitative evaluation study in Greece

BACKGROUND

Research in primary care is necessary to empower its role in health systems and improve population health.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this evaluation study was to assess the experiences of primary care physicians who participated as researchers in a multi-centre, mixed-methodology study on adult vaccination supported by a newly established practice-based research network.

METHODS

Twenty-three physicians participated as researchers, operating in their own practices in 10 different prefectures of Greece. After the completion of the study, they were asked to reflect on their experiences in the research by providing written responses to the questions on the evaluation tool of the study. The open-ended questions were analyzed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Mean age of the researchers was 42.9 years old (±3.9, min 35, max 49) and 11 (47.8%) were male. Six themes emerged as beneficial for the participating researchers: (i) raised awareness of patients' needs, (ii) enhancement of clinical practice and services offered, (iii) positive impact on the doctor-patient relationship, (iv) personal satisfaction, (v) enrichment of their curriculum vitae and (vi) improvement of research skills. All researchers were interested in participating in future studies.

CONCLUSION

The experience of conducting clinical research on adult vaccination in their own practices within a network was reported to be very rewarding. The benefits gained from their participation could be a valuable tool in promoting research and enhancing the quality of primary health care.

Primary care physicians' attitudes toward research: a cross-sectional descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Clinical research in family medicine can improve health outcomes and increase physicians' professionalism, yet is modest compared to other disciplines and receives little funding.

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors that promote and impede engagement of family physicians in research and to compare characteristics of family physicians who do and do not engage in research.

METHODS

During September to October 2018, e-mail questionnaires were sent to 1424 primary care physicians of one health maintenance organization. Respondents were classified as researchers and non-researchers based on their research experience. Responses were analysed using univariate analysis, principal component analysis and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

Of 235 respondents, 48 (20.4%) were categorized as researchers. The respondents generally agreed that research in primary care improves medical services and provides professional prestige; and that workload, bureaucracy and lack of dedicated time hinder engagement in research. Logistic regression analysis identified several factors associated with being a researcher, including advanced research training (P = 0.001, AOR = 8.49, 95% CI [2.49-29.14]), reading more research articles (P = 0.013, AOR = 14.16, 95% CI [1.76-113.5] and self-employment (P = 0.005, AOR = 5.92, 95% CI [1.71-20.44]). In a factor analysis, only 'importance of research' was associated with being a researcher (P = 0.039, AOR = 1.89, 95% CI [1.03-3.48]). Compared to non-researchers, researchers were older (83.3% versus 51.3% aged >40 years, P < 0.001), more often men (60.4% versus 37.4%, P = 0.02) and worked more (41.7% versus 16.7% worked >41 hours weekly, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Providing time dedicated to research, administrative support, research training and education about the importance of research could increase participation in research by primary care physicians.