Identifying available substance use disorder screening tests feasible for use in primary care: A systematic review.

Substance use disorders substantially contribute to the global burden of disease. Early detection in primary care is recommended, and numerous screening tests are available. However, barriers to addictive disorder screening exist and the feasibility of using these tests in primary care is unclear. This study aims to identify available addictive disorder screening tests whose feasibility has been evaluated in primary care. This systematic literature review was performed using Pubmed, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library databases. The search strategy included four research topics: addictive disorders, screening, primary care, and feasibility. Selection criteria included published studies evaluating the feasibility of an addictive disorder screening test in primary care. Data were extracted for each included article, and each analyzed screening test. Of the 4911 articles selected, 20 were included and 16 screening tests were studied. Physician feasibility was evaluated with satisfaction questionnaires or qualitative studies, mainly measuring test administration time. Patient feasibility was measured using criteria including "ease of use", comprehension, or format preference. Self-administered formats were preferred, especially electronic versions. Overall, the TAPS (Tobacco, Alcohol, Prescription medication, and other Substance use) tool provides a good balance between ease of use, brevity of administration and more extensive screening for substance use disorders. Feasibility appears to be a set of heterogeneous criteria relating to users, including comprehension or satisfaction, and practical aspects, including administration time or format preference. The criteria synthesized in this review could serve as a basis for screening test feasibility studies in primary care given the absence of feasibility study guidelines.

Providing information about medication changes upon discharge from a geriatric unit: the community healthcare professionals' point of view.

INTRODUCTION: It is well known that polypharmacy is associated with adverse drug events. Accordingly, specialist geriatric units have to pay particular attention to the appropriateness of prescription and the withdrawal of potentially inappropriate medications. Even though community healthcare professionals are keen to received medication reconciliation results, the literature data show that the quality of communication between the hospital and the community needs to be improved. OBJECTIVE: To assess community healthcare professionals' opinions about the receipt of medication reconciliation results when a patient is discharged from a specialist geriatric unit. METHOD: We performed a qualitative study of general practitioners, community pharmacists and retirement home physicians recruited by phone in the Indre-et-Loire region of France. A grounded theory method was used to analyze interviews in multidisciplinary focus groups. RESULTS: The 17 community healthcare professionals first explained why the receipt of medication reconciliation results was important to them: clarifying the course and outcomes of hospital stays and reducing the lack of dialogue with the hospital, so that the interviewees could provide the care expected of them. The interviewees also described mistrust of the hospital and uncertainty when the modifications were received; these two concepts accentuated each other over time. Lastly, they shared their opinions about the information provided by the hospital, which could improve patient safety and provide leverage for treatment changes but also constituted a burden. PERSPECTIVES: Our participants provided novel feedback and insight, constituting the groundwork for an improved medication reconciliation form that could be evaluated in future research. Exploring hospital-based professionals' points of view might help to determine whether the requested changes in the medication reconciliation form are feasible and might provide a better understanding of community-to-hospital communication.

Exploring the general practitioners' point of view about clinical scores: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical scores help physicians to make clinical decisions, and some are recommended by health authorities for primary care use. As an increasing number of scores are becoming available, there is a need to understand general practitioner expectations for their use in primary care. The aim of this study was to explore general practitioner opinions about using scores in general practice. METHOD: This qualitative study, with a grounded theory approach, used focus groups with general practitioners recruited from their own surgeries to obtain verbatim. Two investigators performed verbatim analysis to ensure data triangulation. The verbatim was double-blind labeled for inductive categorization to conceptualize score use in general practice. RESULTS: Five focus groups were planned, 21 general practitioners from central France participated. Participants appreciated scores for their clinical efficacy but felt that they were difficult to use in primary care. Their opinions revolved around validity, acceptability, and feasibility. Participants have little regard for score validity, they felt many scores are difficult to accept and do not capture contextual and human elements. Participants also felt that scores are unfeasible for primary care use. There are too many, they are hard to find, and either too short or too long. They also felt that scores were complex to administer and took up time for both patient and physician. Many participants felt learned societies should choose appropriate scores. DISCUSSION: This study conceptualizes general practitioner opinions about score use in primary care. The participants weighed up score effectiveness with efficiency. For some participants, scores helped make decisions faster, others expressed being disappointed with the lack of patient-centeredness and limited bio-psycho-social approach.

Cross-analyzing addiction specialist and patient opinions and experiences about addictive disorder screening in primary care to identify interaction-related obstacles: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Promptly identifying individuals with addictive disorders reduces mortality and morbidity and improves quality of life. Although screening in primary care with the Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral Treatment strategy has been recommended since 2008, it remains underutilized. This may be due to barriers including lack of time, patient reluctance or perhaps the timing and approach for discussing addiction with their patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore and cross-analyze patient and addiction specialist experiences and opinions about early addictive disorder screening in primary care to identify interaction-related screening obstacles. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study with purposive maximum variation sampling among nine addiction specialists and eight individuals with addiction disorders conducted between April 2017 and November 2019 in Val-de-Loire, France. MAIN MEASURES: Using a grounded theory approach, verbatim data was collected from face-to-face interviews with addiction specialists and individuals with addiction disorders. These interviews explored their opinions and experiences with addiction screening in primary care. Initially, two independent investigators analyzed the coded verbatim according to the data triangulation principle. Secondly, convergences and divergences between addiction specialist and addict verbatim categories were identified, analyzed, and conceptualized. KEY RESULTS: Four main interaction-related obstacles to early addictive disorder screening in primary care were identified and conceptualized: the new concepts of shared self-censorship and the patient's personal red line, issues not addressed during consultations, and opposition between how physicians and patients would like to approach addictive disorder screening. CONCLUSIONS: To continue analysis of addictive disorder screening dynamics, further studies to examine the perspectives of all those involved in primary care are required. The information revealed from these studies will provide ideas to help patients and caregivers start discussing addiction and to help implement a collaborative team-based care approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL) under No. 2017-093.

Identifying available addictive disorder screening tests validated in primary care: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Substance use disorders and non-substance addictive behaviors are major, growing health concerns. Efficient screening primary care settings encouraged but its widespread implementation is restricted without an appropriate screening approach for clinical practice or guidance for practitioners choose an appropriate screening test. This study aims to identify addictive disorder screening tests which are validated in primary care and suggest steps to help practitioners select the appropriate test. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature through Pubmed, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library was performed from database inception to December 21, 2020. The search strategy included three research topics: screening, addictive disorders, and primary care. Selection criteria included published studies evaluating the validity of an addictive disorder screening test in primary care settings. RESULTS: 8638 papers were selected, and 50 studies were included. Seventeen questionnaires validated in primary care covered the main substance use disorders, but none screened for non-substance addictive behaviors. Tests such as ASSIST, S2BI, SUBS and TAPS screen for a variety of substance use disorders while others such as TICS and CAGE-AID only have a few questions to improve feasibility. However, some shorter tests had weaker psychometric properties. CONCLUSIONS: Seventeen addictive disorder screening tests validated in primary care are available. The feasibility and acceptability in primary care of the shorter tests needs to be assessed. A transversal screening test, adapted to the constraints of primary care, that enables clinicians to detect substance use disorders and non-substance addictive behaviors is needed.

Impulsivity as a Risk Factor for Addictive Disorder Severity during the COVID-19 Lockdown: Results from a Mixed Quantitative and Qualitative Study.

Interindividual differences in personality traits, especially impulsivity traits, are robust risk factors for addictive disorders. However, their impact on addictive disorders during the COVID-19 lockdown remains unknown. This study assessed patients being followed for addictive disorders before the lockdown. We aimed to determine whether impulsivity traits (i.e., negative- and positive urgency) were associated with addictive disorders severity during the lockdowns. We also explored the patients' subjective experiences, focusing on high versus low impulsivity. The quantitative study assessed 44 outpatients consulting for addictive disorders, for impulsivity, emotion regulation, anxiety/depression, and their addictive disorder characteristics, using self-administered questionnaires. In the qualitative study, six patients from the quantitative study were assessed using guided interviews. We observed that higher negative and positive urgencies were associated with addictive disorder severity. The subjective experiences of patients during the lockdowns differed according to their emotion-related impulsivity: high versus low. Low impulsive patients used online technologies more effectively to maintain follow-up, with more positive reappraisal. In contrast, highly impulsive patients reverted more frequently to self-medication with substances and/or behaviors, more social isolation, and found coping with negative emotions more challenging. Overall, the patient's ability to cope with stressful events, like the COVID-19 lockdown, depended on their emotion-related impulsivity.

A Publication Rate Comparison of Oral Communications Presented at the 2010 and 2015 French General Practice Congresses and European General Practice Network Meetings.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess and compare the publication rates of research presented at two French general practice congresses (Collège National des Généralistes Enseignants (CNGE, National College of General Practice Teachers) and Congrès de la Médecine Générale de France (CMGF [French General Practice Congress]) and the European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) meetings held in 2010 and 2015. METHODS: We included all oral presentations from the 2010 and 2015 CNGE, CMGF and EGPRN meetings. We searched subsequent publications up to December 2018. We collected study themes, study designs, author qualifications, and journals for all published presentations. RESULTS: Overall, we included 701 oral presentations; 33% of the 2010 presentations, and 30% of the 2015 presentations were subsequently published (P=.40). For both years, the overall publication rate was higher for presentations from the EGPRN meetings compared with the French meetings (55.6% vs 27.1%; P<.05). Published articles mostly concerned clinical research and quantitative methods from academic authors. Seventeen percent of articles from the EGPRN meetings were published by BMC Family Practice and the European Journal of General Practice, whereas 32% of articles from the French meetings were published by Exercer, the French Journal of General Practice. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the presentations at the 2010 and 2015 EGRPN meetings were published, whereas the publication rate from the French meetings remained under 30%. Further efforts are needed to increase the publication rate of general practice studies in peer-reviewed international journals.

Micro-phenomenological approach to explore the patient experience during an initial spirometry examination to diagnose COPD in general practice in France.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the patient experience of a spirometry test used to confirm chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) diagnosis in patients with suspected smoking-related COPD. DESIGN: This is a qualitative study, performed with open interviews in adults following a routine spirometry test to confirm COPD diagnosis. Data were analysed with a phenomenological-inspired micro-phenomenology approach. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were recruited through their general practitioner, 10 were interviewed. SETTING: Primary care in Centre-Val-De-Loire area, France, in 2018. RESULTS: Participants reported the spirometry test experience as being unfamiliar but gave meaning to the symptoms they experience. Participants expressed a desire to perform the test well and a willingness to confront their state of health. After the spirometry had been completed and the results announced, participants moved through stages of grief from their pre-spirometry self and symptom perception to a state of acceptance. Overall, participants expressed a narrative of an evolving cognitive and corporeal awareness during this spirometry experience. The verbatim quotes describe a cognitive rupture with their chronic illness usually considered as a 'way of life'. CONCLUSIONS: A spirometry test goes beyond a diagnostic value, providing patients with an opportunity to gain awareness of their own state of health, reframe their breathlessness-related limitations and thus begin to accept the disease. These awareness gains may be considered as small steps towards health behavioural change. Spirometry may have educative potential and support lifestyle changes.