The aim of our study was to evaluate pain frequency, intensity, and disability levels in a population with neuromuscular disorders (NMD). Of 862 questionnaires mailed to outpatients treated at 10 centers, 511 (300 men and 211 women) responded with answers suitable for analysis (response rate: 59.3%). Patients had Duchenne or Becker muscular dystrophy, type 1 myotonic muscular dystrophy, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, metabolic myopathy, or myasthenia gravis (MYA). The questionnaire packet included numeric scales for pain intensity and relief, the Brief Pain Inventory, the Saint Antoine Pain Questionnaire, and a scale to assess disability. More than two-thirds of the 331 patients (67.3%) suffered pain during the last three months. The mean number of days with pain was 18.4+/-15.1 days. The mean pain intensity was 4.8+/-2.5. Pain was usually diffuse (153 patients, 44%) and intermittent (228, 71%). Pain intensity varied by the NMD diagnosis; the most severe pain was observed in metabolic myopathy (13/27 patients suffered severe pain, 49%) and in MYA (16/42, 38%). Approximately three-quarters of patients had fewer than 10 days of inactivity due to pain during the last three months, and 98% had fewer than 30 days. Our study indicates that pain is frequent in hereditary muscle disorders and MYA. Mean intensity is moderate. Pain in NMD patients should be systematically assessed.

BackgroundMedical faculties have a role in ensuring that their students are protected from undue commercial influence during their training, and are educated about professional-industry interactions. In North America, many medical faculties have introduced more stringent conflict of interest (COI) policies during the last decade. We asked whether similar steps had been taken in France. We hypothesized that such policies may have been introduced following a 2009–2010 drug safety scandal (benfluorex, Mediator) in which COIs in medicine received prominent press attention.MethodsWe searched the websites of all 37 French Faculties of Medicine in May 2015 for COI policies and curriculum, using standardized keyword searches. We also surveyed all deans of medicine on institutional COI policies and curriculum, based on criteria developed in similar US and Canadian surveys. Personal contacts were also consulted. We calculated a summary score per faculty based on 13 criteria. [range 0–26; higher scores denoting stronger policies]ResultsIn total, we found that 9/37 (24%) of French medical schools had either introduced related curriculum or implemented a COI-related policy. Of these, only 1 (2.5%) had restrictive policies for any category. No official COI policies were found at any of the schools. However, at 2 (5%), informal policies were reported. The maximum score per faculty was 5/26, with 28 (76%) scoring 0.ConclusionThis is the first survey in France to examine COI policies at medical faculties. We found little evidence that protection of medical students from undue commercial influence is a priority, either through institutional policies or education. This is despite national transparency legislation on industry financing of health professionals and limits on gifts. The French National Medical Students Association (ANEMF) has called for more attention to COI in medical education; our results strongly support such a call.

BackgroundThere are 32 teaching hospitals in France, including 30 University hospitals and two Regional teaching hospitals. Teaching hospitals have three roles: health care provision, training of healthcare professionals, and medical research. These roles lead to frequent interactions with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, inevitably raising risks of conflicts of interests. Therefore, policies to manage conflict of interests (COI) are crucial. This study aims to examine COI policies in French teaching hospitals.MethodsAll French teaching hospitals (n = 32) were included in this study. All hospitals websites were screened for institutional COI policies and curriculum on COI, using standardized keyword searches. More data were collected through a questionnaire addressed to each chief executive officer (CEO) of the teaching hospital. We used predefined criteria (n = 20) inspired by similar surveys on COI policies in French, US and Canadian medical schools, with some additions to reflect the local hospital context. A global score for each hospital, ranging from 0 to 60 (higher scores denoting stronger policies) was calculated by summing points obtained for each criterion.ResultsAll 32 hospitals had websites; 21 hospitals listed policies or regulations on their websites or provided them on request. In December 2017, 17 (53.1%) had rules and regulations for some items only, four of which (12.5%) have considered implementing a policy, and only two (6.3%) have begun implementation. 15 (46.9%) had no evidence of COI policies and a null score. The maximum score was 24 out of 60.ConclusionThis is the first systematic assessment of COI policies in teaching hospitals in France. Such policies are needed to protect patients, clinicians and students from undue commercial influence. Despite public and political pressure for better management of COI, few teaching hospitals have implemented comprehensive and protective policies, and some hospitals lacked policies altogether. These results highlight the need for greater attention to management of COI within teaching hospitals. One potential solution would be to integrate COI policies into hospital accreditation procedures, in order to ensure a baseline of management at all teaching hospitals.

BackgroundIndicators for the quality of palliative care are a priority of caregivers and managers to allow improvement of various care settings and their comparison. The involvement of patients and families is of paramount, although this is rarely achieved in practice. No validated assessment tools are available in French. Simple cultural adaption of existing questionnaires may be insufficient, due to the varying organization of care in different countries.The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a new instrument to measure the quality of palliative care and satisfaction from the patient point of view.MethodsResults from a qualitative study were used by a multi-professional workgroup to construct an initial set of 42 items exploring six domains. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in seven hospitals, encompassing three care settings: two palliative care units, one palliative care hospital, and four standard medical units with a mobile palliative care team. All items were assessed for acceptability. We conducted exploratory structural analysis using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and evaluated external validity by comparison against global rating of satisfaction and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) questionnaire.ResultsA total of 214 patients completed the questionnaire. After removing 7 items from the response distribution, PCA identified eight interpretable domains from the 35 final items: availability of caregivers, serenity, quality of information, pain management, caregivers’ listening skills, psychosocial and spiritual aspects, possibility to refuse (care or volunteers), and respect for the patient. Internal consistency was good or acceptable for all subscales (Cronbach’s α 0.5–0.84), except the last one (0.15). Factorial structure was found globally maintained across subgroups defined by age, sex, Palliative Performance Scale (PPS ≥ 60%, 40–50% and ≤ 30%), and care settings. General satisfaction was inversely correlated with the 2 scores of the MDASI questionnaire: symptoms’ severity and impact on life. Each subscale, except “possibility to refuse”, correlated with general satisfaction.ConclusionsQuali-Palli-Pat appears to be a valid, reliable, and well-accepted French tool to explore the quality of care and the satisfaction of palliative care patients. It should be confirmed in a wider sample of care settings.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT02814682, registration date 28.6.2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-019-0403-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.