Studies in the United States, Canada, Belgium, and Switzerland showed that the majority of health problems are managed within primary health care; however, the ecology of French medical care has not yet been described. Nationwide, population-based, cross sectional study. In 2018, we included data from 576,125 beneficiaries from the General Sample of Beneficiaries database. We analysed the reimbursement of consultations with (i) a general practitioner (GP), (ii) an outpatient doctor other than a GP, (iii) a doctor from a university or non-university hospital; and the reimbursement of (iv) hospitalization in a private establishment, (v) general hospital, and (vi) university hospital. For each criterion, we calculated the average monthly number of reimbursements reported on 1,000 beneficiaries. For categorical variables, we used the χ² test, and to compare means we used the z test. All tests were 2-tailed with a P-value < 5% considered significant. Each month, on average, 454 (out of 1,000) beneficiaries received at least 1 reimbursement, 235 consulted a GP, 74 consulted other outpatient doctors in ambulatory care and 24 in a hospital, 13 were hospitalized in a public non-university hospital and 10 in the private sector, and 5 were admitted to a university hospital. Independently of age, people consulted GPs twice as much as other specialists. The 13–25-year-old group consulted the least. Women consulted more than men. Individuals covered by complementary universal health insurance had more care. Our study on reimbursement data confirmed that, like in other countries, in France the majority of health problems are managed within primary health care.

Introduction: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of brief interventions realized in primary care in reducing cannabis use for adolescents and emerging adults. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo, and Central (Cochrane Library) were searched until December 2020. Randomized controlled trials conducted in primary care, concerning in-person brief interventions for non-medical cannabis users aged from 12 to 25 years old were eligible for inclusion. Brief interventions had to last 30 min or less. Patients with comorbid mental health disorder or very specific populations were not included. Results: One thousand eighty hundred and fifty-five studies were identified through database searching; only 8 studies involving 2,199 patients were included for qualitative synthesis after double reading and data extraction. Randomized controlled trials selected were heterogeneous regarding screening tools, initial levels of cannabis use and cannabis outcomes measures. Brief interventions were all based on motivational interviewing techniques or personalized feedback. Seven studies consisted in a single session of brief intervention. Six studies involved also other substance users. No significant reduction of cannabis use after brief intervention was found for most studies, especially in the long term. A trend of decreased cannabis consequences, such as negative psychosocial repercussions, perception of cannabis use by peers, or driving under the influence of cannabis, was reported. Conclusion: The current state of knowledge does not allow us to say that the brief intervention is effective in reducing cannabis use among adolescents in primary care. We found a mild positive effect on cannabis consequences after brief intervention. Mixed qualitative and quantitative studies are need to better evaluate the impact of brief intervention and his faisability. PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): n° CRD42016033080.

Aims. General practitioners (GPs), who are the most frequently consulted health professionals by adolescents, play a key role in screening for psychoactive substance (PAS) use. The purpose of our study was to determine the barriers and expectations of adolescents regarding the identification and management of their PAS use by their general practitioner. Methods. Descriptive, cross-sectional study of a population of adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, followed up in general practice in France. Adolescents were recruited from general practice offices by open-access questionnaires. An opaque box was provided to ensure the anonymity of the adolescents. Results. A total of 277 adolescents were included: 155 girls, mean age 14.5 ± 1.7 years, 113 adolescents (41%) had used a PAS at least once in the past 12 months. Alcohol was the most used PAS, followed by tobacco and cannabis. Three groups were identified: the nonusers group (n = 134); the group of moderate users (n = 71); the group of users at risk of substance abuse or misusing (n = 38). Regardless of group, adolescents felt that their GP was attentive, responsive, competent, understanding, and took the time to ask the appropriate questions in their role. The at-risk group was less confident and less comfortable, and they felt more judged and more afraid of the GP telling their parents. Despite this, the at-risk group was the most willing to talk to their GP about their PAS. Almost half of the adolescents surveyed found it useful to use a questionnaire to discuss PAS. Conclusions. Reminding each consultation of the principles of the relationship of trust and confidentiality while maintaining an empathetic attitude would make it easier for GPs to remove adolescents’ inhibitions about communicating about their PAS use.

Analgesic opioid (AO) misuse by patients ranges from 0% to 50%. General practitioners are the first prescribers of AO. Our objective was to validate the Prescription Opioid Misuse Index (POMI) in primary care. We conducted a psychometric study in patients with chronic pain who had been taking AOs for at least 3 months and were followed in general practice. Patients responded to the POMI at inclusion and after 2 weeks. The reference used was the DSM-V. Sixty-nine GPs included 160 patients (87 women, 54.4%), mean age 56.4 ± 15.2 years. The total POMI score was 1.50 ± 1.27, and 73/160 (45.6.0%) had a score ≥ 2 (misuse threshold). Internal validity was measured with the Kuder–Richardson coefficient, which was 0.44. Correlations between each item and the total score ranged from 0.06 to 0.35. Test–retest reliability was determined from 145 patients: Lin’s concordance coefficient was 0.57 [0.46, 0.68]. Correlation with the DSM-V (Spearman’s coefficient) was 0.52. The POMI does not have sufficient psychometric properties to be recommended as a tool to identify the misuse of AOs in primary care. This study clearly showed that there is a need to create a monitoring tool specific to primary care.

Objective: To determine whether profiles of patients with unbalanced type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≥ 10% could be identified on the basis of socio-demographic, behavioural, clinical, and biological characteristics. Methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional, factorial analysis study of patients with T2DM treated for at least 1 year, with HbA1c ≥ 10%. Patients were recruited via medical analysis laboratories, France. Patients were followed up in general practice with possible recourse to specialist consultations. Data were collected by means of self-administered questionnaires sent by post. Results: A total of 104 patients were included: 69 men and 35 women, with a median age of 66 ± 12 years, body mass index 30.7 ± 6.2kg/m2 and 47% in a vulnerable socio-economic situation. Fifty patients (48%) were followed exclusively by their general practitioners and only 30% had no compliance problems. Creatinuria was measured at least once during the year in 92% of patients, but microalbuminuria was measured in only 20%. Age, socio-economic precariousness, insulin treatment, and follow-up by several health professionals had a negative influence on quality of life (QoL). Two patient profiles were defined by factor analysis: (i) young, rural, smoker, socially isolated, precarious patient with poor compliance and QoL; and (ii) elderly, urban, regular physical activity, in a couple, without precariousness and with satisfactory QoL. Conclusions: Analysis of the characteristics of patients with T2DM and glycaemic imbalance reveals profiles that are useful in clinical practice for a personalized approach to treatment and active prevention of diabetes complications.

To describe glycemic control in diabetic patients monitored by glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) before, during and after COVID-19 confinement. To identify factors, measured before confinement, associated with HbA1c testing during confinement and those associated with a 1 % increase in HbA1c after confinement. Retrospective, descriptive study of diabetic patients over 18 years old who underwent at least one HbA1c test before and after confinement. The data were collected from medical analysis laboratories in the Auvergne region (France) and included HbA1c measurements between March 17, 2019, and May 11, 2021, age, sex, residential area, and medical specialty of the prescribing physician. 70,286 patients were included (54.1 % men, mean age 71.7 ± 13.1 years). The average preconfinement HbA1c level (6.80 % ± 1.16) was similar to the average post-confinement HbA1c level (6.80 % ± 1.14). A larger median reduction of 0.90 % points in HbA1c level in the year following confinement was observed in patients whose preconfinement HbA1c level was ≥ 9 %. Only 24.5 % of the patients had an HbA1c test performed during confinement, the majority of whom were over 80 years of age and had an average HbA1c level between 7 and 9 % before confinement. For 5.1 % of the patients, the average HbA1c level increased by one percentage point or more after confinement. Patients ≤ 64, those with an insufficient number of blood tests before confinement and those with an imbalance in HbA1c before confinement were at risk of glycemic imbalance after confinement. Confinement had no impact on HbA1c levels in diabetic patients.