No abstract

BackgroundMultimorbidity, according to the World Health Organization, exists when there are two or more chronic conditions in one patient. This definition seems inaccurate for the holistic approach to Family Medicine (FM) and long-term care. To avoid this pitfall the European General Practitioners Research Network (EGPRN) designed a comprehensive definition of multimorbidity using a systematic literature review.ObjectiveTo translate that English definition into European languages and to validate the semantic, conceptual and cultural homogeneity of the translations for further research.MethodForward translation of the EGPRN’s definition of multimorbidity followed by a Delphi consensus procedure assessment, a backward translation and a cultural check with all teams to ensure the homogeneity of the translations in their national context. Consensus was defined as 70% of the scores being higher than 6. Delphi rounds were repeated in each country until a consensus was reachedResults229 European medical expert FPs participated in the study. Ten consensual translations of the EGPRN comprehensive definition of multimorbidity were achieved.ConclusionA comprehensive definition of multimorbidity is now available in English and ten European languages for further collaborative research in FM and long-term care.

Background General Practice (GP) seems to be perceived as less attractive throughout Europe. Most of the policies on the subject focused on negative factors. An EGPRN research team from eight participating countries was created in order to clarify the positive factors involved in appeals and retention in GP throughout Europe. The objective was to explore the positive factors supporting the satisfaction of General Practitioners (GPs) in clinical practice throughout Europe. Method Qualitative study, employing face-to-face interviews and focus groups using a phenomenological approach. The setting was primary care in eight European countries: France, Belgium, Germany, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Finland, Poland and Israel. A thematic qualitative analysis was performed following the process described by Braun and Clarke. Codebooks were generated in each country. After translation and back translation of these codebooks, the team clarified and compared the codes and constructed one international codebook used for further coding. Results A purposive sample of 183 GPs, providing primary care to patients in their daily clinical practice, was interviewed across eight countries. The international codebook included 31 interpretative codes and six themes. Five positive themes were common among all the countries involved across Europe: the GP as a person, special skills needed in practice, doctor-patient relationship, freedom in the practice and supportive factors for work-life balance. One theme was not found in Poland or Slovenia: teaching and learning. Conclusion This study identified positive factors which give GPs job satisfaction in their clinical practice. This description focused on the human needs of a GP. They need to have freedom to choose their working environment and to organize their practice to suit themselves. In addition, they need to have access to professional education so they can develop specific skills for General Practice, and also strengthen doctor-patient relationships. Stakeholders should consider these factors when seeking to increase the GP workforce.

BackgroundLooking at what makes General Practitioners (GPs) happy in their profession, may be important in increasing the GP workforce in the future. The European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) created a research team (eight national groups) in order to clarify the factors involved in GP job satisfaction throughout Europe. The first step of this study was a literature review to explore how the satisfaction of GPs had been studied before. The research question was “Which factors are related to GP satisfaction in Clinical Practice?”MethodsSystematic literature review according to the PRISMA statement. The databases searched were Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane. All articles were identified, screened and included by two separate research teams, according to inclusion or exclusion criteria. Then, a qualitative appraisal was undertaken. Next, a thematic analysis process was undertaken to capture any issue relevant to the research question.ResultsThe number of records screened was 458. One hundred four were eligible. Finally, 17 articles were included. The data revealed 13 subthemes, which were grouped into three major themes for GP satisfaction. First there were general profession-related themes, applicable to many professions. A second group of issues related specifically to a GP setting. Finally, a third group was related to professional life and personal issues.ConclusionsA number of factors leading to GP job satisfaction, exist in literature They should be used by policy makers within Europe to increase the GP workforce. The research team needs to undertake qualitative studies to confirm or enhance those results.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0524-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveFrom a systematic literature review (SLR), it became clear that a consensually validated tool was needed by European General Practitioner (GP) researchers in order to allow multi-centred collaborative research, in daily practice, throughout Europe. Which diagnostic tool for depression, validated against psychiatric examination according to the DSM, would GPs select as the best for use in clinical research, taking into account the combination of effectiveness, reliability and ergonomics? A RAND/UCLA, which combines the qualities of the Delphi process and of the nominal group, was used. GP researchers from different European countries were selected. The SLR extracted tools were validated against the DSM. The Youden index was used as an effectiveness criterion and Cronbach’s alpha as a reliability criterion. Ergonomics data were extracted from the literature. Ergonomics were tested face-to-face.ResultsThe SLR extracted 7 tools. Two instruments were considered sufficiently effective and reliable for use: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-25 (HSCL-25). After testing face-to-face, HSCL-25 was selected. A multicultural consensus on one diagnostic tool for depression was obtained for the HSCL-25. This tool will provide the opportunity to select homogeneous populations for European collaborative research in daily practice.

Background:Few clinical diagnostic tools to rule in or rule out depression have been validated in primary care. From a previous systematic review study, it became clear that in terms of research, a validated clinical diagnostic tool (effective, reliable and usable) was needed by European General Practitioner (GP) investigators in order to include patients for research studies in daily practice care and for cross-sectional studies between psychiatrists and GPs.

'Gut feelings' are a well-defined concept in France too. The Dutch and the French consensual statements seem very close. The transculturality of the concept is confirmed, which is a new indicator that 'gut feelings' are a self-contained concept.

Background The Hopkins Symptom Checklist in 25 items (HSCL-25) helps to assess anxiety and depression in Primary Care. Anxiety and depression show considerable overlap in primary care. This self-administrated questionnaire is valid, reliable and ergonomic in the original US version. We have translated it into French. The aim of this study was to estimate the test characteristics of the HSCL-25, in its French version (F-HSCL-25), by comparing it to the Present State Examination-9 French version (F-PSE-9) and by determining its internal validity and dimensions. Method Outpatients from three French General Practice settings (rural, semi-rural and urban) were recruited: approximately 20,000 outpatients among 17 GPs. Two groups were formed: F-HSCL-25 ≥1.75 and F-HSCL-25 <1.75. A validated cut-off score of > 1.75 was considered to indicate a clinically relevant level of symptoms of depression and anxiety. In order to obtain two balanced groups, a different method of randomization was chosen for each group. The F-PSE-9 was randomly administered to 1 in 2 patients in the F-HSCL-25 ≥1.75 group, and to 1 in 16 in the (much larger) F-HSCL-25 <1.75 group. The diagnostic performance was assessed and the test results obtained from both groups were compared with their F-PSE-9 results. Results Of the 1126 patients who completed the F-HCL-25, 886 joined the F-HSCL-25 <1.75 group and 240 the F-HSCL-25 ≥1.75 group. The overall prevalence of depression, using the F-HSCL-25, was 21% in these medical practices. The diagnostic performance of the F-HSCL-25 versus the F-PSE-9, the external criteria were as follows: Positive Predictive Value (PPV) 69.8%, Negative Predictive Value (NPV) 87%; Sensitivity 59.1%, and Specificity 91.4%. The Principal Component Analysis showed that F-HSCL-25 is a one-dimensional tool (anxiety and depression dimensions combined) with a Cronbach Alpha of 0.93. Conclusion The F-HSCL-25 is an appropriate diagnostic tool for anxiety and depression in primary care in France due to its high specificity and high NPV. The HSCL-25 scale has a high eigenvalue. This pilot study will be extended throughout Europe; however, preliminary evidence suggests that the HSCL-25 is a reliable and suitable diagnostic tool for primary care.