Which positive factors give general practitioners job satisfaction and make general practice a rewarding career? A European multicentric qualitative research by the European general practice research network.

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.

One consensual depression diagnosis tool to serve many countries: a challenge! A RAND/UCLA methodology.

OBJECTIVE: From 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. RESULTS: The 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.

Which DSM validated tools for diagnosing depression are usable in primary care research? A systematic literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Depression occurs frequently in primary care. Its broad clinical variability makes it difficult to diagnose. This makes it essential that family practitioner (FP) researchers have validated tools to minimize bias in studies of everyday practice. Which tools validated against psychiatric examination, according to the major depression criteria of DSM-IV or 5, can be used for research purposes? METHOD: An international FP team conducted a systematic review using the following databases: Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase, from 2000/01/01 to 2015/10/01. RESULTS: The three databases search identified 770 abstracts: 546 abstracts were analyzed after duplicates had been removed (224 duplicates); 50 of the validity studies were eligible and 4 studies were included. In 4 studies, the following tools were found: GDS-5, GDS-15, GDS-30, CESD-R, HADS, PSC-51 and HSCL-25. Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive Predictive Value, Negative Predictive Value were collected. The Youden index was calculated. DISCUSSION: Using efficiency data alone to compare these studies could be misleading. Additional reliability, reproducibility and ergonomic data will be essential for making comparisons. CONCLUSION: This study selected seven tools, usable in primary care research, for the diagnosis of depression. In order to define the best tools in terms of efficiency, reproducibility, reliability and ergonomics for research in primary care, and for care itself, further research will be essential.

Which positive factors determine the GP satisfaction in clinical practice? A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Looking 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?" METHODS: Systematic 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: A 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.

What research agenda could be generated from the European General Practice Research Network concept of Multimorbidity in Family Practice?

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is an intuitively appealing, yet challenging, concept for Family Medicine (FM). An EGPRN working group has published a comprehensive definition of the concept based on a systematic review of the literature which is closely linked to patient complexity and to the biopsychosocial model. This concept was identified by European Family Physicians (FPs) throughout Europe using 13 qualitative surveys. To further our understanding of the issues around multimorbidity, we needed to do innovative research to clarify this concept. The research question for this survey was: what research agenda could be generated for Family Medicine from the EGPRN concept of Multimorbidity? METHODS: Nominal group design with a purposive panel of experts in the field of multimorbidity. The nominal group worked through four phases: ideas generation phase, ideas recording phase, evaluation and analysis phase and a prioritization phase. RESULTS: Fifteen international experts participated. A research agenda was established, featuring 6 topics and 11 themes with their corresponding study designs. The highest priorities were given to the following topics: measuring multimorbidity and the impact of multimorbidity. In addition the experts stressed that the concept should be simplified. This would be best achieved by working in reverse: starting with the outcomes and working back to find the useful variables within the concept. CONCLUSION: The highest priority for future research on multimorbidity should be given to measuring multimorbidity and to simplifying the EGPRN model, using a pragmatic approach to determine the useful variables within the concept from its outcomes.