Women's health in migrant populations: a qualitative study in France

BACKGROUND

In 2019, there are 6.5 million migrants living in France. Numerous quantitative studies show inequalities in access and quality of care, in particular in women's health. This study aimed to explore migrant women's experience of gynaecological care.

METHODS

We conducted 17 semi-structured in-depth interviews with migrant women in Toulouse (France). We used a Grounded Theory approach to perform the analysis.

RESULTS

Although migrant women were generally satisfied with the gynaecological care received, they also reported dysfunctions. Positive elements were the French health insurance system, the human qualities of the healthcare providers and the performance of the health system. Although reassuring, the structured framework was perceived to have little flexibility. This was sometimes felt as oppressive, paternalistic or discriminatory. These obstacles, amplified by the women's lifestyle instability and precariousness, the language barrier and the difficulty to understand a totally new healthcare system, made women's health care and, especially, preventive care, a difficult-to-achieve and low-priority objective for the women.

CONCLUSIONS

Migrant women's overall satisfaction with the healthcare system contrasted with the known health inequalities in these populations. This is a good example of the concept of acculturation. Healthcare professionals need to make an introspective effort to prevent the emergence of stereotypes and of discriminatory and paternalistic behaviours. A better understanding and respect of the other person's culture is an indispensable condition for intercultural medicine, and thus for reducing the health inequalities that migrant women experience.

Collaboration Between GPs and Psychologists: Dissatisfaction from the Psychologists' Perspective-A Cross-Sectional Study

Collaborative mental health practices in primary care significantly enhances patients' health. Collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and psychologists could improve non-drug mental care. Little is known of psychologists' perception of GPs and their collaboration. This study aimed to assess the quality of collaboration between GPs and psychologists from the psychologists' perspective and to identify factors associated with satisfactory collaboration. A questionnaire was sent by post to all private psychologists in a region of France in February, 2017. We carried out descriptive and multivariate analysis of factors associated with satisfactory collaboration. The response rate was 38% (n = 434 out of 1128). Collaboration between GPs and psychologists was considered unsatisfactory by 64% (n = 278) of psychologists. The main barriers reported were lack of time, lack of understanding and poor interactions/communication. Sixty-nine percent of psychologists felt that GPs knew little about their work. Psychologists had professional exchanges with an average of three local GPs and received referral information for 12% of new patients. Out of 10 new patients, 2 were referred by a GP. In a multivariate analysis, satisfactory collaboration was significantly associated with the number of GPs psychologists exchanged with (OR 1.29), receipt of referral information (OR 2.18) and a positive assessment of GPs' understanding of psychologists' activity (OR 3.35). Psychologists considered the collaboration between GPs and psychologists as substandard, as well as GPs' knowledge of psychologists' activity. More interactions and better understanding would improve their collaboration.

Reliability and validity of the script concordance test for postgraduate students of general practice

Background: The script concordance test (SCT) is a validated method of examining students’ clinical reasoning. Medical students’ professional skills are assessed during their postgraduate years as they study for a specialist qualification in general practice. However, no specific provision is made for assessing their clinical reasoning during their postgraduate study.

Objective: The aim was to demonstrate the reliability and validity of the SCT in general practice and to determine if this tool could be used to assess medical students’ progress in acquiring clinical reasoning.

Methods: A 135-question SCT was administered to postgraduate medical students at the beginning of their first year of specialized training in general practice, and then every six months throughout their three-year training, as well as to a reference panel of 20 expert general practitioners. For score calculation, we used the combined scoring method as the calculator made available by the University of Montreal’s School of Medicine in Canada. For the validity, student’ scores were compared with experts, p <.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: Ninety students completed all six assessments. The experts’ mean score (76.7/100) was significantly higher than the students’ score across all assessments (p <.001), with a Cronbach’s alpha value of over 0.65 for all assessments.

Conclusion: The SCT was found to be reliable and capable of discriminating between students and experts, demonstrating that this test is a valid tool for assessing clinical reasoning skills in general practice.