How do patients perceive the retirement of their general practitioner? A qualitative interview study in France.

OBJECTIVES: The perspective of general practitioners' (GPs) on retirement and the factors influencing their attitude towards retirement have been previously investigated. However, while the number of GPs has been declining for many years in France, leading to the emergence of medical deserts, the impact on their patients remains to be explored. The aim of this study was to understand patients' perceptions of their GP's retirement. DESIGN: A semistructured interview-based qualitative study was conducted, using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. SETTING: Interviews were conducted in two general practices located in Essonne, Ile-de-France, France, between January and April 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen women and five men, aged 21-94 years, were included in this study. Exclusion criteria were the non-declaration of the physician as the declared doctor and being under 18 years of age. RESULTS: The GP-patient relationship is a link that is built up over time, over the course of several consultations. Patients choose their GP based on qualities or skills they value. In this way, the physician chosen is unique for their patients; this choice reflects a certain loyalty to their physician. The interaction with the family sphere reinforces this relationship through the multiple links created during care. When a GP retires, this link is broken. Patients' reactions can range from indifference to real grief. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the importance of the link between the GPs and their patients and highlights the need to prepare patients for their GP's retirement.

General practice-related MeSH terms in main journals: a bibliometric analysis from 2011 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: There are various Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms used to index general practice research, without consistency. AIM: To understand how general practice-related research is indexed in the main general practice journals between 2011 and 2021, and to analyse the factors that influenced the choice of the general practice-related MeSH. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a quantitative bibliometric study conducted on MEDLINE. METHOD: MeSH were selected according to the international definition of General Practice/Family Medicine: 'General Practice', 'Primary Health Care', 'Family Practice', 'General Practitioners', 'Physicians, Primary Care', and 'Physicians, Family'. Their use was studied from 2011 to 2021 on MEDLINE, reviewing the 20 general practice journals with the highest impact factors. A descriptive and analytical approach was used; the association of the country, journal, and year with the choice of general practice-related MeSH terms was analysed. RESULTS: A total of 8514 of 150 286 articles (5.7%) were using one of the general practice-related MeSH terms. The most used were 'Primary Health Care' (4648/9984, 46.6%) and 'General Practice' (2841/9984, 28.5%). A total of 80.0% (6172/7723) of the articles were related to the UK or US and 71.0% (6055/8514) of the articles came from four journals (BJGP, BMJ, Journal of General Internal Medicine, and Annals of Family Medicine). Two main country clusters emerged from the use of general practice-related MeSH: a British cluster mainly using 'General Practice' and an American cluster using 'Primary Health Care'. The journals also mainly differed in their used of these two MeSH terms. CONCLUSION: Important variations in the indexation of general practice research were found. Researchers should consider combining 'Primary Health Care' and 'General Practice' in their PubMed searches to access all the general practice research, regardless of their country of origin.