ArticleHealth services insights2025
Better Together? A Mediation Analysis of French General Practitioners' Performance in Multi Professional Group Practice.
Article in Health services insights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Integrated primary care teams remain a debatable policy in family medicine that could be a convenient response to French shortages in medical density. Objectives: To analyse how general practitioners (GPs) respond to insufficient GP supply in their practice area in terms of quantity and quality of care, and how this response is mediated by enrolment in integrated primary care teams - multi-professional group practices (MGPs). Methods: We used structural equation modelling on 3 representative cross-sectional surveys (2019-2020) of 1209 French GPs. Quantity and quality of care were approximated by latent variables comprising respectively GPs' demand absorption capacity and frequencies of vaccine recommendations. Results: In the absence of potential mediators, low GP density was negatively associated with quantity (-0.221, unstandardized direct effects), but not with the quality of care. In the presence of mediators, low GP density was associated with higher work-related stress (0.120), which was consecutively associated with deteriorated demand absorption capacity (-0.202). Higher use of e-health tools was associated with greater involvement in vaccine recommendations (0.357). GPs in MGPs tended to use more e-health tools than those practicing outside MGPs (0.032), with a favourable effect on vaccine recommendations. Conclusion: Lower level of work-related stress is the key mediator in handling patients' requests. When correcting for self-selection into MGPs, we found no significant mediation effect of enrolment in MGPs on the quantity of care but rather an effect on the quality of care. Our results pinpoint an added value of an enrolment in an MGPs to care quality that advocates for its further development. JEL Classification: I14, I18.
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.