Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35440039›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

United, can we be stronger? Did French general practitioners in multi-professional groups provide more chronic care follow-up during lockdown?

Anna Zaytseva, Pierre Verger, Bruno Ventelou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Comparing GPs according to their model of practice: are multiprofessional group practices associated with more favourable working conditions?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    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

3 authors.

Anna ZaytsevaAix-Marseille University, CNRS, EHESS, Centrale Marseille, AMSE, 5-9 Boulevard Maurice Bourdet, CS 50498, 13205, Marseille Cedex 1, France. anna.zaytseva@univ-amu.fr.
Pierre VergerSoutheastern Regional Health Observatory, ORS Paca, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Marseille, France, 27 Boulevard Jean Moulin, 13385, Marseille Cedex 5, France.
Bruno VentelouAix-Marseille University, CNRS, EHESS, Centrale Marseille, AMSE, 5-9 Boulevard Maurice Bourdet, CS 50498, 13205, Marseille Cedex 1, France.

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR-17-EURE-0020Conseil Régional Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur PhD grantInstitut pour la Recherche en Santé Publique IReSP-LIAAP18-HSR-008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGiven the importance of the continuous follow-up of chronic patients, we evaluated the performance of French private practice general practitioners (GPs) practicing in multi-professional group practices (MGP) regarding chronic care management during the first Covid-19 lockdown in Spring 2020 compared to GPs not in MGP. We consider two outcomes: continuity of care provision for chronic patients and proactivity in contacting these patients.

methodsThe cross-sectional web questionnaire of 1191 GPs took place in April 2020. We exploit self-reported data on: 1) the frequency of consultations for chronic patients during lockdown compared to their "typical" week before the pandemic, along with 2) GPs' proactive behaviour when contacting their chronic patients. We use probit and bivariate probit models (adjusted for endogeneity of choice of engagement in MGP) to test whether GPs in MGP had significantly different responses to the Covid-19 crisis compared to those practicing outside MGP.

resultsOut of 1191 participants (response rate: 43.1%), around 40% of GPs were female and 34% were younger than 50 years old. Regression results indicate that GPs in MGP were less likely to experience a drop in consultations related to complications of chronic diseases (- 45.3%). They were also more proactive (+ 13.4%) in contacting their chronic patients compared to their peers practicing outside MGP.

conclusionWe demonstrate that the MGP organisational formula was beneficial to the follow-up of patients with chronic conditions during the lockdown; therefore, it appears beneficial to expand integrated practices, since they perform better when facing a major shock. Further research is needed to confirm the efficiency of these integrated practices outside the particular pandemic setup.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PractitionersAttitude of Health PersonnelChronic DiseaseCommunicable Disease ControlCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedCOVID-19FranceGeneral practitionersLong-term careProvider-sponsored organizations

Identifiers

PMID35440039
PMCPMC9016683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.