↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of French training and non-training general practices: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of French training and non-training general practices: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0649-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurent Letrilliart, Pauline Rigault-Fossier, Benoit Fossier, Nadir Kellou, Françoise Paumier, Christophe Bois, Stéphanie Polazzi, Anne-Marie Schott, Yves Zerbib

Abstract

As the medicine practiced in hospital settings has become more specialized, training in primary care is becoming increasingly essential for medical students, especially for future general practitioners (GPs). Only a few limited studies have investigated the representativeness of medical practices delivering this training. The aim of this study was to assess the representativeness of French GP trainers in terms of socio-demographics, patients and activities. We conducted a cross-sectional study covering all private GPs practicing in the Rhône-Alpes region of France in 2011. This population consisted of 4992 GPs, including 623 trainers and 4369 non-trainers, managing 8,198,684 individual patients. Data from 2011 to 2012 were provided by the Regional Health Care Insurance (RHCI). We compared GP trainers with non-trainers using the Pearson chi-square test for qualitative variables and the Student t-test for quantitative variables GP trainers do not differ from non-trainers for gender, but they tend to be younger, more frequently in mid-career, and more likely to practice in a rural area. Their patients are broadly representative of patients attending general practice for age (with the exception of a higher consultation rate for infants), but patients with medical fee exemption status relating to low income are underrepresented. GP trainers have a heavier workload in terms of office visits and on-call duties. They prescribe a higher proportion of generic drugs, perform more electrocardiograms and cervical smears, and fewer plaster casts. GP trainers show better performance in diabetes follow-up, and to a lesser extent for seasonal flu vaccination and mammograms. GPs and patients of training practices are globally representative, which is particularly critical in countries such as France, where the length of specialty training in a general practice setting is still limited to a few months. In addition, GP trainers tend to have better clinical performance, which conforms to their teaching modelling role and may encourage other GPs to become trainers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 60 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 18%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Social Sciences 6 10%
Psychology 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 16 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,832,709
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,841
of 3,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#220,467
of 300,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#60
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,440 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.