Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28988186›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

How do general practitioners put preventive care recommendations into practice? A cross-sectional study in Switzerland and France.

Paul Sebo, Bernard Cerutti, Jean-Pascal Fournier, Cédric Rat, Fabien Rougerie, Nicolas Senn, Dagmar M Haller, Hubert Maisonneuve

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The role of organization of care in GPs' prevention practice.Primary health care research & development · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Paul SeboPrimary Care Unit, University of Geneva, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
Bernard CeruttiUnit of Research and Development in Medical Education, University of Geneva, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
Jean-Pascal FournierDepartment of General Practice, University of Nantes, Faculty of Medicine, Nantes, France.
Cédric RatDepartment of General Practice, University of Nantes, Faculty of Medicine, Nantes, France.
Fabien RougerieDepartment of General Medicine, University of Strasbourg, Faculty of Medicine, Strasbourg, France.
Nicolas SennDepartment of Ambulatory Care and Community Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Dagmar M HallerPrimary Care Unit, University of Geneva, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.
Hubert MaisonneuvePrimary Care Unit, University of Geneva, Faculty of Medicine, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe previously identified that general practitioners (GPs) in French-speaking regions of Europe had a variable uptake of common preventive recommendations. In this study, we describe GPs' reports of how they put different preventive recommendations into practice. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsCross-sectional study conducted in 2015 in Switzerland and France. 3400 randomly selected GPs were asked to complete a postal (n=1100) or online (n=2300) questionnaire. GPs who exclusively practiced complementary and alternative medicine were not eligible for the study. 764 GPs (response rate: postal 47%, online 11%) returned the questionnaire (428 in Switzerland and 336 in France).

main outcome measuresWe investigated how the GPs performed five preventive practices (screening for dyslipidaemia, colorectal and prostate cancer, identification of hazardous alcohol consumption and brief intervention), examining which age group they selected, the screening frequency, the test they used, whether they favoured shared decision for prostate cancer screening and their definition of hazardous alcohol use.

resultsA large variability was observed in the way in which GPs provide these practices. 41% reported screening yearly for cholesterol, starting and stopping at variable ages. 82% did not use any test to identify hazardous drinking. The most common responses for defining hazardous drinking were, for men, ≥21 drinks/week (24%) and ≥4 drinks/occasion for binge drinking (20%), and for women, ≥14 drinks/week (28%) and ≥3 drinks/occasion (21%). Screening for colorectal cancer, mainly with colonoscopy in Switzerland (86%) and stool-based tests in France (93%), was provided every 10 years in Switzerland (65%) and 2 years in France (91%) to patients between 50 years (87%) and 75 years (67%). Prostate cancer screening, usually with shared decision (82%), was provided yearly (62%) to patients between 50 years (74%) and 75-80 years (32%-34%).

conclusionsThe large diversity in the way these practices are provided needs to be addressed, as it could be related to some misunderstandingof the current guidelines, to barriers for guideline uptake or, more likely, to the absence of agreement between the various recommendations.

Indexed as

General PracticeGeneral PractitionersGuideline AdherencePractice Patterns, Physicians'AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlcohol-Related DisordersAttitude of Health PersonnelColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesDyslipidemiasFemaleFranceGuidelines as TopicHumansdiversitypreventionprimary carescreening

Identifiers

PMID28988186
PMCPMC5640000

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.