Search

Introduction: With France one of the European countries most strongly affected by COVID-19 in the spring of 2020, French authorities imposed a nationwide lockdown for 8 weeks (March 17–May 10). This study explored the perception of the adult population about the need for—and access to—psychological support from health care professionals (HCP) in response to concerns about the psychological needs during lockdown. Material and method: This online cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of the adult general population of mainland France (N = 2,003) took place during the last four days of the French lockdown (May 7–10, 2020). Results: One in eight respondents (12.2%) perceived a need for psychological support from an HCP during the lockdown; most had symptoms of depression and/or anxiety of at least moderate intensity. Only a third (29.8%, 3.6% of the entire sample) actually obtained this support. Factors associated with this perceived need included: age under 35, economic difficulties due to lockdown, pre-lockdown use of psychological support, infection with COVID-19, serious worries about becoming infected, and heavy media use to obtain information about the disease. Among those who perceived a need for psychological support, the elderly were the most likely not to consult an HCP. People aged 35–64, those with high income, and those seriously worried about developing COVID-19 were the most likely to forgo seeking access to care because of their fear of infection by the coronavirus-2019. Conclusion: The perceived need for psychological support from an HCP and access to it appeared to be strongly associated with COVID-19 exposure factor. More research about this association is needed to improve the health authorities' understanding of the population's psychological needs in this situation and to enhance HCPs' abilities to meet them. In particular, further research of its specific impact on youth is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Worldwide, around 18 million people receive a cancer diagnosis each year, most of whom survive long enough to face additional cancer-related costs. In France, most costs directly related to cancer are covered by the National Health Insurance Fund, and cancer patients can receive treatments without paying advance fees. In this context, the costs faced by cancer survivors are mostly social costs. Drawing on fundamental cause theory, this study aimed to explore the socially-differentiated evolution of cancer survivor’s income five years after diagnosis. Our study draws on the findings of VICAN5, a French national survey that was conducted in 2015/2016 in a representative sample of 4,174 cancer survivors to obtain information on living conditions five years after diagnosis, and that was restricted to 12 tumour sites accounting for 88% of global cancer incidence in France. We used the multiple imputation method and the Heckman selection model to identify the factors associated with a decrease in household income per consumption unit (HICU), while accounting for missing data. Among survivors still working five years after diagnosis, 17.6% reported lower income at survey than at diagnosis. After adjustment for socio-demographic and medical characteristics, the decrease in HICU was more frequent in women, singles, low educated survivors, and survivors with reduced working time. Finally, subjective measures of income variation and economic well-being were a useful complement to objective measures since 31.6% of cancer survivors still working five years after diagnosis reported a perceived decrease in household income. In conclusion, inequalities in economic well-being persist long after diagnosis in France, and this despite the fact that most cancer-related costs are covered by the French National Health Insurance Fund. Consequently, more attention should be paid to cancer patients with low socio-economic status to help reduce inequalities in post-diagnosis living conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 R² ): 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Today, according to many public health experts, public confidence in vaccines is waning. The term "vaccine hesitancy" (VH) is increasingly used to describe the spread of such vaccine reluctance. But VH is an ambiguous notion and its theoretical background appears uncertain. To clarify this concept, we first review the current definitions of VH in the public health literature and examine its most prominent characteristics. VH has been defined as a set of beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours, or some combination of them, shared by a large and heterogeneous portion of the population and including people who exhibit reluctant conformism (they may either decline a vaccine, delay it or accept it despite their doubts) and vaccine-specific behaviours. Secondly, we underline some of the ambiguities of this notion and argue that it is more a catchall category than a real concept. We also call into question the usefulness of understanding VH as an intermediate position along a continuum ranging from anti-vaccine to pro-vaccine attitudes, and we discuss its qualification as a belief, attitude or behaviour. Thirdly, we propose a theoretical framework, based on previous literature and taking into account some major structural features of contemporary societies, that considers VH as a kind of decision-making process that depends on people's level of commitment to healthism/risk culture and on their level of confidence in the health authorities and mainstream medicine.

Background: Many people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) suffer from stigma and discrimination. There is an ongoing debate, however, about whether stigma, fear and discrimination actually fuel the persisting spread of HIV, or slow it down by reducing contacts between the whole population and high-risk minorities. To contribute to this debate, we analysed the relationship between perceived discrimination and unsafe sex in a large sample of French PLWHAs., Methodology/principal Findings: In 2003, we conducted a national cross-sectional survey among a random sample of HIV-infected patients. The analysis was restricted to sexually active respondents (N = 2,136). Unsafe sex was defined as sexual intercourse without a condom with a seronegative/unknown serostatus partner during the prior 12 months. Separate analyses were performed for each transmission group (injecting drug use (IDU), homosexual contact, heterosexual contact). Overall, 24% of respondents reported experiences of discrimination in their close social environment (relatives, friends and colleagues) and 18% reported unsafe sex during the previous 12 months. Both prevalences were higher in the IDU group (32% for perceived discrimination, 23% for unsafe sex). In multivariate analyses, experience of discrimination in the close social environment was associated with an increase in unsafe sex for both PLWHAs infected through IDU and heterosexual contact (OR = 1.65 and 1.80 respectively)., Conclusions: Our study clearly confirms a relationship between discrimination and unsafe sex among PLWHAs infected through either IDU or heterosexual contact. This relationship was especially strong in the heterosexual group that has become the main vector of HIV transmission in France, and who is the more likely of sexual mixing with the general population. These results seriously question the hypothesis that HIV-stigma has no effect or could even reduce the infection spread of HIV.