Explore the vast range of titles available.

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). 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. 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. 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). 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.

Among the contributors to the wellbeing crisis facing medicine, a leading and somewhat hidden factor is medical culture. This article seeks to highlight how certain aspects of medical culture are hazardous to doctors' health, and offer guidance for how general practitioners (GPs) can support cultural reform. The fundamental values of medicine are noble and worth preserving; however, they have become unrealistic. Specifically, expectations of excellence have become demands for perfection, while altruistic intentions have become self-sacrificial. The effects of these cultural shifts are evident in how doctors treat themselves, particularly in comparison to non-medical groups. Medical culture needs re-balancing. A useful approach for GPs to take is that of self-compassion, which advocates for kinder treatment of oneself. Embodying such a philosophy will not only support one's own wellbeing, but also serve as a catalyst for the cultural change necessary to bolster the sustainability of the profession.

Background Feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve the quality of care in primary care settings. As part of a study conducted to explore the quality of preventive care, we investigated general practitioners’ (GPs) views on the usefulness of feedback and their preferences regarding how feedback is provided. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2015 among randomly selected community-based GPs in two regions of Switzerland and France. GPs were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire about how often they provided 12 measures of preventive care: blood pressure, weight and height measurements, screening for dyslipidemia, at-risk drinking (and advice to reduce for at-risk drinkers), smoking (and advice to stop for smokers), colon and prostate cancer, and influenza immunization for patients >65 years and at-risk patients. They were also asked to estimate the usefulness of a feedback regarding their preventive care practice, reason(s) for which a feedback could be useful, and finally, to state which type of feedback they would like to receive. Chi-square tests were used to compare frequencies. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with GPs considering feedback as useful. Results Five hundred eighteen of 1100 GPs (47.1%) returned the questionnaire. They were predominantly men (62.5%) and most (40.1%) were aged between 55 and 64 years old. Overall, 44.3% stated that a feedback would be useful. Younger GPs and those carrying out more measures of preventive care were more likely to consider feedback useful. The two main reasons for being interested in feedback were to receive knowledge about the study results and to modify or improve practice. The two preferred feedback interventions were a brief report and a report with specific information regarding prevention best practice, whereas less than 1% would like to discuss the results face-to-face with the study investigators. Conclusions These findings suggest that GPs have preferences regarding the types of feedback they would like to receive. Because the implementation of guidelines is highly related to the acceptance of feedback, we strongly encourage decision makers to take GPs’ preferences into account when developing strategies to implement guidelines, in order to improve the quality of primary care.

ObjectivesThe current COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the measures taken to control it, have a profound impact on healthcare. This study was set up to gain insights into the consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak on the core competencies of general practice, as they are experienced by general practitioners (GPs) on the frontline.Design, setting, participantsWe performed a descriptive study using semistructured interviews with 132 GPs in Flanders, using a topic list based on the WONCA definition of core competencies in general practice. Data were analysed qualitatively using framework analysis.ResultsChanges in practice management and in consultation strategies were quickly adopted. There was a major switch towards telephone triage and consults, for covid-related as well as for non-covid related problems. Patient-centred care is still a major objective. Clinical decision-making is largely focused on respiratory assessment and triage, and GPs feel that acute care is compromised, both by their own changed focus and by the fact that patients consult less frequently for non-covid problems. Chronic care is mostly postponed, and this will have consequences that will extend and become visible after the corona crisis. Through the holistic eyes of primary care, the current outbreak—as well as the measures taken to control it—will have a profound impact on psychological and socioeconomic well-being. This impact is already visible in vulnerable people and will continue to become clear in the medium and long terms. GPs think that they are at high risk of getting infected. Dropping out and being unable to contribute their part or becoming virus transmitters are reported to be greater concerns than getting ill themselves.ConclusionsThe current times have a profound impact on the core competences of primary care. Although the vast increase in patients soliciting medical help and the necessary separate covid and non-covid flows have been dealt with, GPs are worried about the continuity of regular care and the consequences of the anticovid measures. These may become a threat for the general health of the population and for the provision of primary healthcare in the near and distant future.

Mobile health (mHealth) apps can be prescribed as an effective self-management tool for patients. However, it is challenging for doctors to navigate 350,000 mHealth apps to find the right ones to recommend. Although medical professionals from many countries are using mHealth apps to varying degrees, current mHealth app use by Australian general practitioners (GPs) and the barriers and facilitators they encounter when integrating mHealth apps in their clinical practice have not been reported comprehensively. The objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate current knowledge and use of mHealth apps by GPs in Australia, (2) determine the barriers and facilitators to their use of mHealth apps in consultations, and (3) explore potential solutions to the barriers. We helped the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) to expand the mHealth section of their annual technology survey for 2017 based on the findings of our semistructured interviews with GPs to further explore barriers to using mHealth apps in clinical practice. The survey was distributed to the RACGP members nationwide between October 26 and December 3, 2017 using Qualtrics Web-based survey tool. A total of 1014 RACGP members responded (response rate 4.6% [1014/21,884], completion rate 61.2% [621/1014]). The median years practiced was 20.7 years. Two-thirds of the GPs used apps professionally in the forms of medical calculators and point-of-care references. A little over half of the GPs recommended apps for patients either daily (12.9%, 80/621), weekly (25.9%, 161/621), or monthly (13.4%, 83/621). Mindfulness and mental health apps were recommended most often (32.5%, 337/1036), followed by diet and nutrition (13.9%, 144/1036), exercise and fitness (12.7%, 132/1036), and women's health (10%, 104/1036) related apps. Knowledge and usage of evidence-based apps from the Handbook of Non-Drug Interventions were low. The prevailing barriers to app prescription were the lack of knowledge of effective apps (59.9%, 372/621) and the lack of trustworthy source to access them (15.5%, 96/621). GPs expressed their need for a list of safe and effective apps from a trustworthy source, such as the RACGP, to overcome these barriers. They reported a preference for online video training material or webinar to learn more about mHealth apps. Most GPs are using apps professionally but recommending apps to patients sparingly. The main barriers to app prescription were the lack of knowledge of effective apps and the lack of trustworthy source to access them. A curated compilation of effective mHealth apps or an app library specifically aimed at GPs and health professionals would help solve both barriers.

The long-term and often lifelong relationship of general practitioners (GPs) with their patients is considered to make them the ideal initiators of advance care planning (ACP). However, in general the incidence of ACP discussions is low and ACP seems to occur more often for cancer patients than for those with dementia or heart failure. To identify the barriers, from GPs' perspective, to initiating ACP and to gain insight into any differences in barriers between the trajectories of patients with cancer, heart failure and dementia. Five focus groups were held with GPs (n = 36) in Flanders, Belgium. The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the method of constant comparative analysis. THREE TYPES OF BARRIERS WERE DISTINGUISHED: barriers relating to the GP, to the patient and family and to the health care system. In cancer patients, a GP's lack of knowledge about treatment options and the lack of structural collaboration between the GP and specialist were expressed as barriers. Barriers that occured more often with heart failure and dementia were the lack of GP familiarity with the terminal phase, the lack of key moments to initiate ACP, the patient's lack of awareness of their diagnosis and prognosis and the fact that patients did not often initiate such discussions themselves. The future lack of decision-making capacity of dementia patients was reported by the GPs as a specific barrier for the initiation of ACP. The results of our study contribute to a better understanding of the factors hindering GPs in initiating ACP. Multiple barriers need to be overcome, of which many can be addressed through the development of practical guidelines and educational interventions.

ObjectiveTo investigate how recent national policy-led workforce interventions are affecting intentions to remain working as a general practitioner (GP).DesignOnline questionnaire survey with qualitative and quantitative questions.Setting and participantsAll GPs (1697) in Wessex region, an area in England for which previous GP career intention data from 2014 is available.Results929 (54.7%) participated. 59.4% reported that morale had reduced over the past two years, and 48.5% said they had brought forward their plans to leave general practice. Intention to leave/retire in the next 2 years increased from 13% in the 2014 survey to 18% in October/November 2017 (p=0.02), while intention to continue working for at least the next 5 years dropped from 63.9% to 48.5% (p<0.0001). Age, length of service and lower job satisfaction were associated with intention to leave. Work intensity and amount were the most common reasons given for intention to leave sooner than previously planned; 51.0% participants reported working more hours than 2 years previously, predominantly due to increased workload.GPs suggested increased funding, more GPs, better education of the public and expanding non-clinical and support staff as interventions to improve GP retention.National initiatives that aligned with these priorities, such as funding to expand practice nursing were viewed positively, but low numbers of GPs had seen evidence of their roll-out. Conversely, national initiatives that did not align, such as video consulting, were viewed negatively.ConclusionWhile recent initiatives may be having an impact on targeted areas, most GPs are experiencing little effect. This may be contributing to further lowering of morale and bringing forward intentions to leave. More urgent action appears to be needed to stem the growing workforce crisis.

Background High occupational burnout among general practitioners (GPs) is an important challenge to China’s efforts to strengthen its primary healthcare delivery; however, data to help understand this issue are unavailable. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of burnout and associated factors among GPs. Methods A cross-sectional design was used to collect data from December 12, 2014, to March 10, 2015, with a self-administered structured questionnaire from 1015 GPs (response rate, 85.6%) in Hubei Province, Central China. Burnout was measured using a 22-item Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS). MBI-HSS scores and frequency were analyzed by the three dimensions of emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal accomplishment (PA). Factors associated with burnout among GPs were estimated using a multiple linear regression model. Results Of the respondents, 2.46% had a high level of burnout in all three dimensions, 24.83% reported high levels of EE, 6.21% scored high on DP, and 33.99% were at high risk of PA. GPs who were unmarried, had lower levels of job satisfaction, and had been exposed to workplace violence experienced higher levels of burnout. Intriguingly, no statistically significant associations were found between burnout and the duration of GP practice, age, sex, income, practice setting, and professional level. Conclusion This is the first study of occupational burnout in Chinese general practice. Burnout is prevalent among GPs in Hubei, China. Interventions aimed at increasing job satisfaction, improving doctor-patient relationships and providing safer workplace environments may be promising strategies to reduce burnout among GPs in Hubei, China.

Background ACP enables individuals to define and discuss goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care with family and healthcare providers, and to record these goals and preferences if appropriate. Because general practitioners (GPs) often have long-lasting relationships with people with dementia, GPs seem most suited to initiate ACP. However, ACP with people with dementia in primary care is uncommon. Although several barriers and facilitators to ACP with people with dementia have already been identified in earlier research, evidence gaps still exist. We therefore aimed to further explore barriers and facilitators for ACP with community-dwelling people with dementia. Methods A qualitative design, involving all stakeholders in the care for community-dwelling people with dementia, was used. We conducted semi-structured interviews with community dwelling people with dementia and their family caregivers, semi structured interviews by telephone with GPs and a focus group meeting with practice nurses and case managers. Content analysis was used to define codes, categories and themes. Results Ten face to face interviews, 10 interviews by telephone and one focus group interview were conducted. From this data, three themes were derived: development of a trust-based relationship, characteristics of an ACP conversation and the primary care setting. ACP is facilitated by a therapeutic relationship between the person with dementia/family caregiver and the GP built on trust, preferably in the context of home visits. Addressing not only medical but also non-medical issues soon after the dementia diagnosis is given is an important facilitator during conversation. Key barriers were: the wish of some participants to postpone ACP until problems arise, GPs’ time restraints, concerns about the documentation of ACP outcomes and concerns about the availability of these outcomes to other healthcare providers. Conclusions ACP is facilitated by an open relationship based on trust between the GP, the person with dementia and his/her family caregiver, in which both medical and non-medical issues are addressed. GPs’ availability and time restraints are barriers to ACP. Transferring ACP tasks to case managers or practice nurses may contribute to overcoming these barriers.

Due to the disease's progressive nature, advance care planning (ACP) is recommended for people with early stage dementia. General practitioners (GPs) should initiate ACP because of their longstanding relationships with their patients and their early involvement with the disease, however ACP is seldom applied. To determine the barriers and facilitators faced by GPs related to ACP with people with dementia. We systematically searched the relevant databases for papers published between January 1995 and December 2016, using the terms: primary healthcare, GP, dementia, and ACP. We conducted a systematic integrative review following Whittemore and Knafl's method. Papers containing empirical data about GP barriers and/or facilitators regarding ACP for people with dementia were included. We evaluated quality using the Mixed-Method-Appraisal-Tool and analyzed data using qualitative content analysis. Ten qualitative, five quantitative, and one mixed-method paper revealed four themes: timely initiation of ACP, stakeholder engagement, important aspects of ACP the conversation, and prerequisites for ACP. Important barriers were: uncertainty about the timing of ACP, how to plan for an uncertain future, lack of knowledge about dementia, difficulties assessing people with dementia's decisional capacities, and changing preferences. Facilitators for ACP were: an early start when cognitive decline is still mild, inclusion of all stakeholders, and discussing social and medical issues aimed at maintaining normal life. Discussing future care is difficult due to uncertainties about the future and the decisional capacities of people with dementia. Based on the facilitators, we recommend that GPs use a timely and goal-oriented approach and involve all stakeholders. ACP discussions should focus on the ability of people with dementia to maintain normal daily function as well as on their quality of life, instead of end-of-life-discussions only. GPs need training to acquire knowledge and skills to timely initiate collaborative ACP discussions.