ArticleBMJ open2024
Assessing the acceptability to general practitioners of the French College of General Medicine's recommendations on considering patients' social situations: a Delphi study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial determinants of health (SDH) impact the health status of individuals around the world. General practitioners (GPs) can take into account the social situation of patients in their care practice. To this end, the College of General Medicine (CGM) issued recommendations in 2022 to propose 100 methods of action.
objectiveTo assess the acceptability to GPs of the recommendations set out by the CGM to improve the consideration of the social situation of patients in consultations.
designQuantitative, cross-sectional, descriptive study, using the Delphi method.
settingThe data were collected through the administration of a questionnaire to GPs practising in France.
participantsParticipants were recruited by email from the academic network of Sorbonne University. The only criteria for inclusion were to be a GP from Sorbonne University and to complete the full questionnaire. 25 participants were included.
interventionsProposals were grouped into 24 themes. Participants had to rate the acceptability of these themes by rating their degree of relevance and degree of applicability on a Likert scale. PRIMARY OUTCOME: The primary outcome was the acceptability by GPs of proposals to take into account the SDH. Acceptability was defined as relevance with a median greater than or equal to 7 and applicability with a median greater than or equal to 7, in the absence of disagreements.
resultsAfter 2 rounds, 12 themes were accepted: 5 addressed interventions at the individual level (eg, 'understanding the context of patients' lives and identifying social difficulties'), 4 addressed interventions at the organisational level (eg, 'communication actions aimed at vulnerable patient populations') and 3 addressed interventions at territorial level (municipality and national). Relevance was very good for all of them, with median responses ranging from 8 to 9 and with no disagreement. Applicability was more mixed, with 12 themes deemed applicable. Justifications were provided through participants' comments. Proposals were made to improve the applicability.
conclusionThis study explored how SDH could be taken into account through the perspective of GPs in the context of the CGM's recommendations. While all proposals were deemed relevant, some were not applicable. The findings emphasise the need for adaptations in the organisation of the practice, of care pathways and more generally, in the organisation of the health system. Those actions require the commitment of professionals and political actors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.