Who are the patients who use non-pharmacological home remedies? Cross-sectional study in Switzerland and France.

BACKGROUND: Many patients may be tempted to use non-pharmacological home remedies (NPHRs) to relieve various complaints. To the best of our knowledge, there is little data on the characteristics of patients using NPHRs. In this cross-sectional study carried out between March 2020 and July 2021, we examined the socio-demographic factors underlying their use in patient populations in Switzerland and France. METHODS: Using official registries, we randomly selected 50 primary care physicians (PCPs) in Geneva (Switzerland) and Lyon/Grenoble (France). Seven research assistants consecutively recruited patients from PCP waiting rooms (20-25 patients per practice). Patients completed a paper-based questionnaire assessing the use [yes/no] of 304 NPHRs for 79 medical conditions. The NPHR list was developed by our team with input from 97 patients. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regressions, adjusting for intra-cluster correlations, to examine associations between NPHR use and patient characteristics (gender, age, practice location, nationality, education level, and self-rated health). RESULTS: Of the 1198 eligible patients, 1012 agreed to participate (85%). Overall, 635 patients (63%) reported using at least one of the remedies tested in the study. In multivariable analysis, women (OR = 1.7 [95%CI = 1.3-2.3], P-value < 0.001), younger patients (< 40 years: OR = 2.1 [95%CI = 1.6-2.9], P-value < 0.001), and French patients (OR = 1.6 [95%CI = 1.1-2.3], P-value < 0.001) tended to use NPHRs more often than other patients. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients, particularly women, young people, and French patients, reported using NPHRs. This survey's findings hold the potential to inform healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers about the diverse preferences that shape patients' healthcare choices.

Development of complex pedagogical competencies and reflexivity in clinical teachers via distance learning: a mixed methods study.

Clinical reasoning is the cornerstone to healthcare practice and teaching it appropriately is of utmost importance. Yet there is little formal training for clinical supervisors in supervising this reasoning process. Distance education provides interesting opportunities for continuous professional development of healthcare professionals. This mixed methods study aimed at gaining in-depth understanding about whether and how clinical teachers can develop complex pedagogical competencies through participation in a Massive Open Online Course on the supervision of clinical reasoning (MOOC SCR). Participants self-assed their clinical supervision skills before and after partaking in the MOOC SCR through the Maastricht Clinical Teachers Questionnaire. Item scores and the distribution of response proportions before and after participation were compared using paired t-tests and McNemar's tests respectively. In parallel, the evolution of a subset of MOOC participants' pedagogical practice and posture was explored via semi-structured interviews throughout and beyond their MOOC participation using simulated and personal situational recalls. The verbatim were analysed with standard thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative findings converged and their integration demonstrated that partaking in the MOOC SCR promoted the development of complex pedagogical competencies and reflexivity with the participants. This was quantitatively evidenced by significantly higher self-assessed supervision skills and corresponding attitudes after completing the MOOC. The qualitative data provided rich descriptions of how this progression in pedagogical practice and posture occurred in the field and how it was shaped by participants' interaction with the MOOC's content and their motivations to progress. Our findings provide evidence for the development of pedagogical skills and corresponding attitudes for the supervision of clinical reasoning through participation in the MOOC SCR and contribute to the literature body on the opportunities that distance learning provides for the development of pedagogical competencies. The extent to which the pedagogical underpinnings of the MOOC contributed to these developments remains to be determined.

Nonpharmacological home remedies for upper respiratory tract infections: a cross-sectional study of primary care patients in Switzerland and France.

BACKGROUND: Many patients might be tempted to use nonpharmacological home remedies (NPHRs) to relieve upper respiratory tract infection (URTI) symptoms. However, primary care physicians (PCPs) rarely recommend NPHRs due to a lack of knowledge in this field. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey among primary care patients in Switzerland and France to explore which NPHRs they use and consider effective for 3 common URTI symptoms: sore throat/cough/common cold. METHODS: Using official physician registries, we randomly selected 50 PCPs in Geneva (Switzerland) and Lyon/Grenoble (France). Seven research assistants were involved in the recruitment of consecutive patients from the waiting rooms of these PCPs (20-25 patients per practice). Patients were asked to complete a paper-based questionnaire to assess the use and perceived effectiveness of 72 NPHRs for URTI symptoms. The list of NPHRs was developed by our research team with the help of 97 patients. Remedies were considered effective if patients reported that they were effective/very effective. Data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Of the 1,198 eligible patients, 1,012 agreed to participate (84.5%). The 4 most frequently used NPHRs were honey/lemon/thyme/herbal teas. Most patients using these NPHRs considered them as effective (between 77% of patients for onion syrup for cough and 94% of patients for thyme inhalations for common colds). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients reported using honey/lemon/thyme/herbal teas for URTI symptoms, and generally considered these treatments to be effective. Future research should explore the extent to which these remedies can be safely proposed as alternatives for the symptomatic treatment of ear/nose/throat complaints in primary care.

Effect of an app for promoting advance care planning and motivating patients to write their advance directives.

BACKGROUND: Accordons-nous, a smartphone app, was developed to support patients in the advance care planning (ACP) process. The app raises awareness and facilitates communication on this sensitive topic. It helps patients express their values and preferences for care and write their advance directives (AD). OBJECTIVE: Measure the impact of distributing Accordons-nous on patients' propensity to engage in the ACP process, compared with the distribution of a leaflet. A secondary objective was to test the effect of socio-demographic factors (age, health status, gender, level of education) on propensity to engage in ACP. METHODS: Pre-post randomized control study. Participants were patients approached in medical waiting rooms. They received the app (treatment) or an information leaflet (control). They responded to two questionnaires: one at recruitment and a second 3-4 weeks later. Improvement on four variables relevant to ACP was measured: reported contemplation of an event relevant to ACP; decision about treatment in case of that event; discussion about it with relatives or health care professionals; writing advance directives. Statistical analysis included between-group comparisons of pre-post differences with 2-sample tests for equality of proportions and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy three participants were recruited and full responses obtained from 312. Overall, the intervention (control and treatment together) had a positive effect on the mean reported ACP engagement for all variables: new or renewed contemplation 54%; increase in decision 8%, discussion 11%, and writing 1%, compared to the baseline. Compared to the control (leaflet), the treatment group (app) had a larger effect size for all variables: between-group difference in contemplation + 11% (logistic regression, p = .05), decision + 1% (but p > .05 on this variable), discussion + 5% (p = .05), and writing AD + 5% (p = .03). Moreover, greater age was positively correlated with having written AD at inclusion (21% among retired compared to 2% among young adults) and with the propensity to write AD after our intervention (logistic regression, p = .001). Other factors tested (frequency of consultations, gender, level of education) had no effect on participants' ACP engagement. CONCLUSIONS: When distributed without specific counselling, the tool increased reported ACP engagement, although effect sizes remain modest. Further studies are needed to investigate whether the app could generate greater ACP engagement if used by professionals in dedicated ACP consultations.