BackgroundSince the 1990s, professional institutions worldwide have emphasised the need to develop research in general practice to improve the health of the population. The recent creation of professorships in general practice in French Universities should foster research in this field. Our aim was to explore the views of patients and relevant professionals on research in general practice.MethodsQualitative study, using the grounded theory approach according to Strauss and Corbin, conducted in 2010 in three French regions. Nine focus groups were run to data saturation, and included 57 participants in four different categories: patients, non-academic GPs, academic GPs, academics in other disciplines.ResultsMost of the participants in the four categories described research in general practice as specific to the population managed and relevant for health care. They considered that its grounding in day-to-day practice enabled pragmatic approaches. The influence of the pharmaceutical industry, rivalries between university disciplines and a possible gap between research and practice were considered as pitfalls. The barriers identified were representations of the medical researcher as a “laboratory worker”, the lack of awareness of any research in the discipline, and lack of time and training. While the views of patients and non-academic GPs are mostly focused on professional issues and the views of academics other than GPs on technical issues, academic GPs are in a position to play a role of interface between the universities and general practices.ConclusionsAlthough the role of GPs in research is perceived differently by the various protagonists, research in general practice has an undisputed legitimacy in France. Solutions for overcoming the identified barriers include research networks with appropriate resources and training and scientifically sound collaborative research projects, as already implemented in leading countries.
In France, there is a discrepancy between perceptions and practices related to vaccination, the causes of which are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to examine and compare patients' and physicians' social representations of vaccination. A qualitative study based on hierarchized evocation was conducted on a sample of 30 patients and 30 general practitioners. The participants were asked to write down seven words or word groups (word associations) induced by the concept of "vaccination" and to rank them in order of importance. The associations were grouped by theme and sub-theme. Their frequency, connotations and importance were compared between the two groups. The results show that, overall, the physicians had a positive view of vaccination, while the patients had a more neutral view (polarity index: + 0.38 vs + 0.07, p < 0.01). Among both patients and general practitioners, vaccination tends to be perceived as a form of medical care mainly targeting children and aimed at prevention, and its effectiveness is considered to be implicit. However, the patients appeared to be more concerned about the potential side effects of certain vaccinations, while the GPs emphasized the harmlessness of vaccination. The participating GPs also tended to take a collective view of vaccination, while some patients criticized the lack of targeted vaccinations. Better communication on these key aspects of representations may help to increase confidence in vaccination and to close the gap between perception and practice.
BackgroundGroup practices are increasingly common for primary care physicians worldwide. Although breakups are likely to happen frequently within group practices, their process has not been studied to date. The aims of this study were therefore to explore the reasons for breakups of group practices of general practitioners and to describe the associated feelings.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study consisting of in-depth interviews of 21 general practitioners and one secretary from past group practices in the Rhône-Alpes region, France, who experienced a breakup.ResultsWhen getting started in group practice for the first time, young doctors did not feel ready and supported, and did not necessarily share the same expectations as their partners. The reasons for the breakups involved imbalances within the groups, contrasting working and management styles, and breakdowns in communication. The breakup process often generated long-persistent feelings of suffering and failure for almost every partner who experienced a breakup, particularly for the partner who was leaving.ConclusionsWeakening factors exist from the very beginning of a partnership, and problems are likely to increase at every change or event occurring in the group. We provide several recommendations, including fair management, a shared project based on a precise contract, the consultation of third parties as necessary and, in the worst case scenario, leaving the group practice in time.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.