Search

Purpose: Vaccine hesitancy is common in France, including among general practitioners (GPs).  We aimed to understand vaccine hesitant GPs' views towards vaccines. Method : We conducted in-depth interviews that were thematically analysed. Result: We found that, facilitated by health scandals and vaccine controversies-that according to participants were not effectively handled by health authorities-the implicit contract existing between health authorities and GPs has been ruptured. This contract implies that health authorities support GPs in making vaccine recommendations by addressing GPs' own concerns, providing them with adequate and up-to-date information and advice, and involving them in vaccine decision-making. In turn, GPs encourage vaccination to reach vaccine coverage targets. Conclusion: The rupture of this implicit contract has led to a breach in trust in the health authorities and the vaccines that they recommend.

Background: Pain management, especially at the end of life, varies depending on the prescriber's characteristics and attitudes. Little is known about the practices of general practitioners (GPs) regarding end-of-life management for patients with cancer. Objectives: To provide an overview of the characteristics associated with GPs' attitudes and practices regarding opioids prescribing and to explore GPs' perceived role and difficulties in managing end-of-life care for patients with cancer. Design: A cross-sectional study (December 2015 to March 2016). Subjects and Analyses: Data were collected from a representative sample of 376 GPs in southeastern France recruited to participate in a survey on medical practices and opinions regarding cancer patient management. Descriptive analyses and multivariate logistic regressions were conducted to study the characteristics, attitudes, and practices associated with GPs' opioids prescribing attitudes. Results: Almost 97% of GPs stated that they prescribe opioids to end-of-life cancer patients. Among these, 77% said that they prescribe opioids on their own initiative, while 23% declared doing so in coordination with a specialist team. Female GPs, GPs working in solo practices, and GPs reporting more difficulties in managing end-of-life cancer patients were significantly less likely to prescribe opioids on their own initiative. Conclusion: Our results suggest that GPs' characteristics and practices influence the prescribing attitudes at the end of life. Given the dearth of studies on this topic, further research is recommended to better understand the impact of GPs' characteristics on their prescriptive attitudes. The possible interactions between patients' and physicians' characteristics-in particular gender-should also be investigated.

This article sought to estimate the prevalence of vaccine hesitancy (VH) among French general practitioners (GPs) and to study its demographic, professional and personal correlates. We conducted a cross-sectional telephone survey about GPs' vaccination-related attitudes and practices in 2014 in a national panel of 1,712 GPs in private practice, randomly selected from an exhaustive database of health professionals in France. A cluster analysis of various dimensions of VH (self-reported vaccine recommendations, perceptions of vaccine risks and usefulness) identified three clusters: 86% of GPs (95% confidence interval (CI): 84-88) were not or only slightly vaccine-hesitant, 11% (95% CI: 9-12) moderately hesitant and 3% (95% CI: 3-4) highly hesitant or opposed to vaccination. GPs in the latter two clusters were less frequently vaccinated and reported occasional practice of alternative medicine more often than those in the first cluster; they also described less experience with vaccine-preventable diseases and more experience with patients who they considered had serious adverse effects from vaccination. This study confirms the presence of VH among French GPs but also suggests that its prevalence is moderate. Given GPs' central role in vaccination, these results nevertheless call for a mobilisation of stakeholders to address VH among GPs., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: None declared., (This article is copyright of The Authors, 2016.)

Objective: General practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine acceptance in France. We sought to study: (1) GPs' perceptions of its risks and efficacy and their recommendation behavior; (2) the relative importance of factors associated with the frequency of their recommendations., Methods: Cross-sectional observational study in 2014 nested in a national panel of 1712 randomly selected GPs in private practice in France (response rate: 92.4%). We used model averaging to analyze the associations of self-reported frequency of GPs' HPV vaccine recommendations with their perception of its risk-benefit balance and their opinions about the utility of vaccines in general., Results: Overall, 72% of participants reported frequently recommending HPV vaccination; 60% considered that not enough is known about its risks. The model averaging showed that the factors most associated with infrequent recommendation of this vaccine by GPs were: unfavorable perceptions of its risk-benefit balance (OR=0.13; 95%CI=0.09-0.21; partial R(2)=0.10), a decision not to vaccinate one's own daughter(s) with this vaccine (OR=0.13; 95%CI=0.07-0.24; partial R(2)=0.05), and doubts about vaccine utility in general (OR=0.78; 95%CI=0.71-0.86; partial R(2)=0.03)., Conclusion: Although nearly three-quarters of French GPs frequently recommended the HPV vaccine, our findings indicate that a substantial percentage of them are hesitant about it. Doubts about its risks and efficacy strongly influence their recommendation behavior. More research is warranted to help design and evaluate tailored tools and multicomponent intervention strategies to address physician's hesitancy about this vaccine., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In July, 2009, French health authorities, like those in many other countries, decided to embark on a mass vaccination campaign against the pandemic A(H1N1) influenza. Private general practitioners (GPs) were not involved in this campaign. We studied GPs' pandemic vaccine (pvaccine) uptake, quantified the relative contribution of its potential explanatory factors and studied whether their own vaccination choice was correlated with their recommendations to patients about pvaccination., Methodology/principal Findings: In this cross-sectional telephone survey, professional investigators interviewed an existing panel of randomly selected private GPs (N = 1431; response rate at inclusion in the panel: 36.8%; participation rate in the survey: 100%). The main outcome variable was GPs' own pvaccine uptake. We used an averaging multi-model approach to quantify the relative contribution of factors associated with their vaccination. The pvaccine uptake rate was 61% (95%CI = 58.3-63.3). Four independent factors contributed the most to this rate (partial Nagelkerke's R(2)): history of previous vaccination against seasonal influenza (14.5%), perception of risks and efficacy of the pvaccine (10.8%), opinions regarding the organization of the vaccination campaign (7.1%), and perception of the pandemic's severity (5.2%). Overall, 71.3% (95%CI = 69.0-73.6) of the participants recommended pvaccination to young adults at risk and 40.1% (95%CI = 37.6-42.7) to other young adults. GPs' own pvaccination was strongly predictive of their recommendation to both young adults at risk (OR = 9.6; 95%CI = 7.2-12.6) and those not at risk (OR = 8.5; 95%CI = 6.4-11.4)., Conclusions/significance: These results suggest that around 60% of French private GPs followed French authorities' recommendations about vaccination of health care professionals against the A(H1N1) influenza. They pinpoint priority levers for improving preparedness for future influenza pandemics. Besides encouraging GPs' own uptake of regular vaccination against seasonal influenza, providing GPs with clear information about the risks and efficacy of any new pvaccine and involving them in the organization of any future vaccine campaign may improve their pvaccine uptake.

Background: Long‐term medico‐social follow‐up of cancer survivors is a challenge because of frequent subsequent troubles. In particular survivors with lower health literacy (HL) have poorer health and might more often use primary care services. However, the impact of HL on cancer survivors' medico‐social follow‐up visits is not known. Our aim was to study medico‐social follow‐up and its associated determinants with a focus on HL 5 years after diagnosis. Methods: VICAN is a national survey of French adult cancer survivors 5 years after a primary cancer. The Single‐Item Literacy Screener was used to define functional HL in this sample. We also asked patients to report the frequency of follow‐up visits with a general practitioner (GP) and/or social worker (SW) regarding their cancer disease. Results: The 4045 participants were 57.4 ± 12.9 years old at diagnosis (range 20‐82) and 1495 (37%) were classified as having inadequate HL. Most cancer survivors (66.7%) were followed up by a GP regarding their cancer while only 14.5% had contact with a SW. After adjustment for sociodemographic, medical, and psychosocial characteristics, medico‐social follow‐ups (GP and SW visits) were more frequent among survivors with low HL. Furthermore, low income, unemployment, impaired mental health, treatment by chemotherapy, and perception of sequelae and fatigue were also associated with more frequent medico‐social follow‐up. Cancer localization association with medico‐social follow‐up was heterogeneous. Conclusion: French cancer survivors with limited HL, lower socioeconomic status, and more severe cancer were more likely to use GP care and social services. Raising awareness and training GPs and SWs on medico‐social follow‐up for patients with limited HL seem necessary to support these vulnerable survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated attitudes toward buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) among general practitioners (GPs) and their maintained patients' propensity to turn to several prescribers (doctor shopping), among a sample of 345 GPs prescribing BMT in South-East-em France. Survey data were anonymously matched to administrative data that provided information about GPs' patients. A simultaneous equation model suggests that GPs' attitude influenced doctor shopping, not the reverse. Doctor shopping was lower among GPs who reported inducting BMT with 8 mg of buprenorphine per day or more, and was higher for GPs endorsing a stringent attitude toward patients. Thus doctor shopping should not be understood exclusively as a deviant behaviour. It is partially physician-driven, and further research is needed to assess whether it reflects patients' dissatisfaction toward inappropriate care supply and the difficulty to establish a good therapeutic relationship between an opiate-dependent patient and a general practitioner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In France, since 1996, any general practitioner (GP) can prescribe high-dosage buprenorphine maintenance treatment (BMT) for opioid-dependent patients. The health authorities initially provided mandatory specific training, but since 1998, such training is only delivered by specialized networks and the pharmaceutical industry. Among a random sample of GPs from southeastern France (N=345), we found that many untrained GPs, as well as a significant minority of trained GPs, were likely to prescribe an ineffective dosage of buprenorphine or a potentially dangerous treatment (BMT+a short half-life benzodiazepine). These results highlight the necessity to edit clear guidelines, especially concerning situations of polyaddiction and psychiatric comorbidity, and to extend and improve BMT training in France with a renewed involvement of health authorities for quality control of such training. They even suggest that GPs'' participation to specialized training sessions should become a mandatory prerequisite for prescribing BMT. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Doctors' attitudes towards HPV vaccine depended on their trust in health authorities. • The lower their trust in health authorities, the higher their hesitancy. • The higher their hesitancy, the more importance they attached to patients' opinion. • Even when favorable to HPV vaccine, they were more or less proactive with patients. • This depended on their professional values regarding their public health role. The contemporary crisis of trust in vaccines has severely impaired acceptance of the HPV vaccine, especially in France, where its uptake culminated at 23.7% in 2018 (complete course at age 16). Physicians' recommendations strongly influence its acceptance/refusal. Our study sought to understand the decision processes leading physicians to recommend this vaccine (or not). Qualitative interviews of French physicians (general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians). We first randomly selected doctors in a national register of medical professionals and then resorted to snowballing to build a convenience sample. We coded the interviews in a thematic analysis built both inductively and deductively from our research questions and data. Two thirds of the participants (19/28) were favorable to HPV vaccination, some (4) opposed it, while the others were hesitant about recommending it. In explaining their opinions, most participants mentioned that they trusted the stakeholders within the vaccination system: the less trust they had, the more critical they were of the vaccine and the more importance they attributed to patients' opinions. We identified three different ways they interacted with patients on this topic: informing and convincing; adapting to patients' opinions; refusing compromise about vaccination. Crossing these various themes, we found 5 types of physicians: dissidents (mistrustful of the healthcare system and HPV vaccine), hesitant (finding it difficult to make up their minds about this vaccination), laissez-faire (letting patients decide by themselves, but very favorable to HPV vaccination), educator (very favorable), and uncompromising vaccinators (refusing debate). Pediatricians were overrepresented among the latter two types. Physicians' judgment was influenced by their trust in the stakeholders involved in designing and implementing the HPV vaccination strategy. In this sense, doctors did not differ substantially from laypeople. They were, nonetheless, strongly influenced by their professional style and ethos. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]