ArticleFamily practice2019
A structural equation model of the family physicians attitude towards their role in prevention: a cross-sectional study in Switzerland.
Article in Family practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Cross-Sectional Study of the Prevalence and Determinants of Common Mental Health Problems in Primary Care in Switzerland.International journal of public health · 2023Article
- Psycho-behavioural factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Korean adults: The moderating role of age.Journal of advanced nursing · 2022Article
- Structural Equation Modeling Analysis of Factors Influencing Family Doctor Contracted Services Based on Survey Data from Changning District, Shanghai.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Health Promotion Capacity Among Chinese Healthcare Professionals and Its Influence on Preventive Health Service Practices.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn contrast to many studies exploring barriers to preventive care in family medicine, there is less quantitative research regarding the self-perceived role of family physicians (FPs) in prevention and its predictive factors. Moreover, the existing studies considered this attitude as a homogeneous entity. The objective of this study is firstly, to characterize FPs' attitudes towards prevention taking into account nine different prevention themes, and secondly, to explore the factors that could be predictive of this attitude.
methodsThe data stem from a cross-sectional national survey on prevention we conducted in Switzerland from 2015 to 2016 (170 physicians randomly drawn, online questionnaire). We first performed a confirmatory factor analysis to define a homogeneous latent variable regarding physicians' attitude towards prevention, then, a structural equation modeling to identify potential predictors.
resultsThe FP' attitude towards their role in preventive care was homogeneously positive whatever the topic (smoking, drinking dietary habits, physical activities, and more generally, cardiovascular risk factors) except for occupational risks and cannabis consumption. A feeling of good effectiveness was a positive predictor of this positive attitude while seniority, the lack of reimbursement and being a physician from the German-speaking area were negative predictors.
conclusionThe FP' attitude about their role in prevention is homogeneous concerning the 'classical' topics of prevention, whereas they still under-recognize certain topics as important fields for prevention. To change this situation, we probably need a global effort to introduce other ways of thinking about prevention, including not only FP but also all stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.