Laëtitia Gimenez

BACKGROUND: Patients suffering from cancers are increasingly numerous in general practice consultations. The General Practitioner (GP) should be at the heart of the management of patients. Several studies have examined the perceptions of GPs confronted with the patient suffering from cancer and the relationships of GPs with oncologists, but few studies have focused on the patients' perspective. We studied the three-way relationship between the oncologist, the GP, and the patient, from the patient's point of view. METHODS: A questionnaire validated by a group consisting of GPs, oncologists, nurses, an epidemiologist and quality analyst, was administered over a three-week period to patients suffering from cancer receiving chemotherapy in a day hospital. RESULTS: The analysis was based on 403 questionnaires. Patients had confidence in the GP's knowledge of oncology in 88% of cases; 49% consulted their GP for pain, 15% for cancer-related advice, and 44% in emergencies. Perceived good GP/oncologist communication led patients to turn increasingly to their GP for cancer-related consultations (RR = 1.14; p = 0.01) and gave patients confidence in the GP's ability to manage cancer-related problems (RR = 1.30; p < 0.01). Mention by the oncologist of the GP's role increased the consultations for complications (RR = 1.82; p < 0.01) as well as recourse to the GP in an emergency (RR = 1.35; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients suffering from cancer considered that the GP was competent, but did not often consult their GP for cancer-related problems. There is a discrepancy between patients' beliefs and their behaviour. When the oncologist spoke to patients of the GP's role, patients had recourse to their GP more often. Systematically integrating a GP consultation to conclude cancer diagnosis disclosure, could improve management and care coordination.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer burden worldwide. In France, it is the second most common cause of cancer death after lung cancer. Systematic uptake of CRC screening can improve survival rates. However, people with limited health literacy (HL) and lower socioeconomic position rarely participate. Our aim is to assess the impact of an intervention combining HL and CRC screening training for general practitioners (GPs) with a pictorial brochure and video targeting eligible patients, to increase CRC screening and other secondary outcomes, after 1 year, in several underserved geographic areas in France. METHODS: We will use a two-arm multicentric randomized controlled cluster trial with 32 GPs primarily serving underserved populations across four regions in France with 1024 patients recruited. GPs practicing in underserved areas (identified using the European Deprivation Index) will be block-randomized to: 1) a combined intervention (HL and CRC training + brochure and video for eligible patients), or 2) usual care. Patients will be included if they are between 50 and 74 years old, eligible for CRC screening, and present to recruited GPs. The primary outcome is CRC screening uptake after 1 year. Secondary outcomes include increasing knowledge and patient activation. After trial recruitment, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with up to 24 GPs (up to 8 in each region) and up to 48 patients (6 to 12 per region) based on data saturation. We will explore strategies that promote the intervention's sustained use and rapid implementation using Normalization Process Theory. We will follow a community-based participatory research approach throughout the trial. For the analyses, we will adopt a regression framework for all quantitative data. We will also use exploratory mediation analyses. We will analyze all qualitative data using a framework analysis guided by Normalization Process Theory. DISCUSSION: Limited HL and its impact on the general population is a growing public health and policy challenge worldwide. It has received limited attention in France. A combined HL intervention could reduce disparities in CRC screening, increase screening rates among the most vulnerable populations, and increase knowledge and activation (beneficial in the context of repeated screening). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2020-A01687-32 . Date of registration: 17th November 2020.

BACKGROUND: Despite most GPs recognising their role in the early diagnosis of alcohol use disorder (AUD), only 23% of GPs routinely screen for alcohol use. One reason GPs report for not screening is their relationship with patients; questions regarding alcohol use are considered a disturbance of a relationship built on mutual trust. AIM: To analyse the feelings and experiences of patients with AUD concerning early screening for alcohol use by GPs. DESIGN & SETTING: = 12) with AUD in remission or treatment, recruited from various medical settings. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted, audiorecorded, and transcribed verbatim. The authors conducted an inductive analysis based on grounded theory. The analysis was performed until theoretical data saturation was reached. RESULTS: The participants experienced AUD as a chronic, destructive, and shameful disease. The participants expected their GPs to play a primary role in addressing AUD by kind listening, and providing information and support. If the GPs expressed a non-judgmental attitude, the participants could confide in them; this moment was identified as a key milestone in their trajectory, allowing relief and a move toward treatment. The participants thought that any consultation could be an opportunity to discuss alcohol use and noted that such discussions required a psychological and benevolent approach. CONCLUSION: The participants felt fear or denial from the GPs, even though they felt that discussing alcohol use is part of the GP's job. The participants requested that GPs adopt non-judgmental attitudes and kindness when approaching the subject of alcohol use.