[Opinions of primary care managers on sources of influence on medical practice. Differences with physicians' opinions]. / Opiniones de los gestores de la atención primaria sobre las fuentes de influencia en la práctica médica. Diferencias con la opinión de los médicos asistenciales.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the opinion of primary healthcare managers on the importance and legitimacy of different sources of influence in medical practice, and to compare the results with the opinions of physicians in healthcare teams. DESIGN: cross-sectional study. POPULATION: primary healthcare managers in the Spanish public health system (area managers, medical and nursing directors) and in the Andalusian health service (district director, nursing coordinators and epidemiology and program coordinators). The sample comprised the total population of 302. As dependent variables, a series of questions was designed to gather the interviewees' opinions on different strategies, institutions and/or collectives that exert some kind of influence on medical practice. The degree of importance of each factor was summarized into a set of 9 items. The subjects were asked to score each item from 1 (most important) to 9 (least important). To assess the legitimacy of these scores, 16 items were presented measured using a Likert-type 7-point scale (1: not at all legitimate; 7: very legitimate). A self-administered questionnaire was used, sent by mail. Non-parametric tests (Friedman and Kruskall-Wallis) were used for statistical analysis of the data. RESULTS: The response rate was 79.8%. Using the Friedman test for an ordinal 9-point scale, analysis of the mean ranges for each item revealed that the most important sources of influence for the primary healthcare managers interviewed were: the devising of management protocols by the doctors themselves; discussion with colleagues; feedback from patients, and attending training courses, and reading articles and scientific journals. The institutions or groups with the greatest legitimacy to influence medical practice were: users or citizens; internal audits; peers; scientific associations, and the managers themselves. CONCLUSIONS: The sources of influence considered to have the greatest importance and legitimacy in influencing medical practice concern the professional medical system (self-defined protocols, discussion with colleagues, etc.). Managers accept the use of business managerial tools as well as the influence of social actors to a greater extent than do physicians. This finding could indicate differences in the value systems between primary healthcare physicians and managers.

Opiniones de los gestores de la atención primaria sobre las fuentes de influencia en la práctica médica. Diferencias con la opinión de los médicos asistenciales / Opinions of primary care managers on sources of influence on medical practice. Differences with physicians' opinions

Objetivos: Los objetivos del estudio son: conocer la opinión de los gestores de atención primaria acerca de la importancia y legitimidad de distintas fuentes de influencia en la práctica médica, y comparar estos resultados con la opinión de los médicos asistenciales de los equipos de atención primaria. Material y métodos: Diseño de estudio transversal. Población: gestores de atención primaria pertenecientes a la Red del INSALUD (gerentes de área, directores médicos y de enfermería) y al Servicio Andaluz de Salud (directores de distrito, coordinadores de enfermería y coordinadores de epidemiología y programas). La muestra se corresponde con la población total y fue de 302. Como variables dependientes se consideró un conjunto de preguntas que recogían las opiniones de los entrevistados sobre distintas estrategias, instituciones y/o colectivos que ejercen algún tipo de influencia en la práctica médica. El grado de 'importancia' de cada una de ellas se sintetizó en un conjunto de 9 ítems que se pedía que se puntuaran desde 1 (el más importante) hasta 9 (el menos importante). Para valorar la 'legitimidad' de las mismas se presentaron 16 ítems medidos mediante una escala tipo Likert de 7 puntos (1: nada legítimo; 7: muy legítimo). Se utilizó un cuestionario autoadministrado enviado por correo. Para el análisis estadístico de los datos se emplearon test no paramétricos (Friedman y Kruskall-Wallis). Resultados: La tasa de respuesta fue del 79,8 por ciento. El análisis de los rangos medios de cada ítem, mediante el test de Friedman para una escala ordinal de 9 puntos, puso de manifiesto que entre las fuentes de influencia más importantes para los gestores sanitarios de atención primaria estudiados destacan: la elaboración de protocolos de actuación por los propios médicos; la discusión con los colegas; recibir retroalimentación de los pacientes atendidos, y la asistencia a cursos de formación, lectura de artículos e informes científicos. Las instituciones o colectivos con mayor legitimidad para influir en la práctica médica son: los usuarios o ciudadanos, las auditorías internas, los compañeros de trabajo médicos, las organizaciones científicas y los propios gestores. Conclusiones: Las fuentes de influencia que se consideran más importantes y legitimadas para influir en la práctica médica se sitúan en torno al denominado 'sistema profesional médico'. Respecto a las principales diferencias entre la opinión de los gestores y la de los médicos asistenciales, hay que señalar que entre los primeros cuentan con una mayor aceptación los mecanismos de gestión empresarial y las influencias en la práctica médica procedentes de los distintos actores del contexto social. Este hecho podría expresar la existencia de diferencias en los sistemas de valores entre los profesionales asistenciales y los gestores de la atención primaria (AU)

Objectives: To determine the opinion of primary healthcare managers on the importance and legitimacy of different sources of influence in medical practice, and to compare the results with the opinions of physicians in healthcare teams. Material and methods: Design: cross-sectional study. Population: primary healthcare managers in the Spanish public health system (area managers, medical and nursing directors) and in the Andalusian health service (district director, nursing coordinators and epidemiology and program coordinators). The sample comprised the total population of 302. As dependent variables, a series of questions was designed to gather the interviewees' opinions on different strategies, institutions and/or collectives that exert some kind of influence on medical practice. The degree of «importance» of each factor was summarized into a set of 9 items. The subjects were asked to score each item from 1 (most important) to 9 (least important). To assess the «legitimacy» of these scores, 16 items were presented measured using a Likert-type 7-point scale (1: not at all legitimate; 7: very legitimate). A self-administered questionnaire was used, sent by mail. Non-parametric tests (Friedman and Kruskall-Wallis) were used for statistical analysis of the data. Results: The response rate was 79.8%. Using the Friedman test for an ordinal 9-point scale, analysis of the mean ranges for each item revealed that the most important sources of influence for the primary healthcare managers interviewed were: the devising of management protocols by the doctors themselves; discussion with colleagues; feedback from patients, and attending training courses, and reading articles and scientific journals. The institutions or groups with the greatest legitimacy to influence medical practice were: users or citizens; internal audits; peers; scientific associations, and the managers themselves. Conclusions: The sources of influence considered to have the greatest importance and legitimacy in influencing medical practice concern the «professional medical system» (self-defined protocols, discussion with colleagues, etc.). Managers accept the use of business managerial tools as well as the influence of social actors to a greater extent than do physicians. This finding could indicate differences in the value systems between primary healthcare physicians and managers (AU)

[The attitudes of primary care physicians towards the opening of health centers]. / Actitudes de los médicos de atención primaria hacia la puesta en marcha de los centros de salud.

OBJECTIVE: To measure doctors' attitudes to the opening of Health Centres. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SITE. Primary Care services on the island of Gran Canaria. PARTICIPANTS: Doctors with tenure. MAIN MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: From a self-administered Likert type questionnaire, it could be observed that the proportion of those polled who did not reply was linked to the number who had a "Fiscal Licence" (Odds Ratio O.R. = 6.26), a ratio which did not disappear when stratified by age (O.R. = 5.88 for those less than or equal to 40 and O.R. = 3.08 for those greater than 40). The scale presented high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.937), indicating favorable attitudes from doctors integrated into Health Centres and both positive and negative attitudes in doctors of a traditional cut. Those specialising in Family Medicine, those under 40 years old, those who had no other health job and those connected with Trades Unions showed more favorable attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: Individual and group characteristics are linked to different attitudes. The knowledge, evaluation and behaviour components of doctor's attitudes must be improved, by involving the reference groups of both individuals and groups.