BackgroundIt is essential to anticipate and limit the social, economic and sanitary cost of type 2 diabetes (T2D), which is in constant progression worldwide.When blood glucose targets are not achieved with diet and lifestyle intervention, insulin is recommended whether or not the patient is already taking hypoglycaemic drugs. However, the benefit/risk balance of insulin remains controversial. Our aim was to determine the efficacy and safety of insulin vs. hypoglycaemic drugs or diet/placebo on clinically relevant endpoints.MethodsA systematic literature review (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library) including all randomised clinical trials (RCT) analysing insulin vs. hypoglycaemic drugs or diet/placebo, published between 1950 and 2013, was performed. We included all RCTs reporting effects on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, death by cancer, cardiovascular morbidity, microvascular complications and hypoglycaemia in adults ≥ 18 years with T2D. Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted the data. Internal validity of studies was analyzed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) were calculated, using the fixed effect model in first approach. The I2 statistic assessed heterogeneity. In case of statistical heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses then a random effect model were performed. The alpha threshold was 0.05. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal cardiovascular events, hypoglycaemic events, death from cancer, and macro- or microvascular complications.ResultsTwenty RCTs were included out of the 1632 initially identified studies. 18 599 patients were analysed: Insulin had no effect vs. hypoglycaemic drugs on all-cause mortality RR = 0.99 (95 % CI =0.92–1.06) and cardiovascular mortality RR = 0.99 (95 % CI =0.90–1.09), nor vs. diet/placebo RR = 0.92 (95 % CI = 0.80–1.07) and RR = 0.95 (95 % CI 0.77–1.18) respectively. No effect was found on secondary outcomes either. However, severe hypoglycaemia was more frequent with insulin compared to hypoglycaemic drugs RR = 1.70 (95 % CI = 1.51–1.91).ConclusionsThere is no significant evidence of long term efficacy of insulin on any clinical outcome in T2D. However, there is a trend to clinically harmful adverse effects such as hypoglycaemia and weight gain. The only benefit could be limited to reducing short term hyperglycemia. This needs to be confirmed with further studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12902-016-0120-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Health promotion is part of GPs' commitments. Some waiting rooms have therefore been implemented with audiovisual aids (posters, pamphlets or screens) for health promotion purposes. Few studies have assessed the effect of audiovisual aids in primary care.Objectives: To identify, describe and appraise studies that have investigated the effects of audiovisual aids on health promotion in primary healthcare waiting rooms. To determine which factors influence this impact through literature review.Methods: Systematic review. Two independent researchers using predefined keywords searched databases. Additional publications were extracted from the reference lists of the selected articles. The selection of the articles was performed on the title and abstract, followed by complete reading and assessment. Bias and level of evidence were analysed.Results: A total of 909 articles were collected. Most of them were not in primary care settings. Fourteen peer-reviewed articles fully meeting inclusion criteria were included and analysed. Good quality studies were scarce. Eight of these articles using videos or slideshows on TV screens or tablets indicated effects: three of them were significant on patient knowledge with acceptable evidence and three on health behaviour on surrogate endpoints. Audiovisual aids seem to be used or noticed by patients and can induce conversations with physicians. The relevant factors that might influence these effects (duration of exposure, conception quality, theme, target population and time spent in the waiting room) are insufficiently investigated.Conclusion: Audiovisual aids broadcasting messages using screens (TVs, computers, tablets, and smartphones with Bluetooth® pairing) probably enhance patients’ knowledge. A change in health behaviour remains controversial.

'Gut feelings' are a well-defined concept in France too. The Dutch and the French consensual statements seem very close. The transculturality of the concept is confirmed, which is a new indicator that 'gut feelings' are a self-contained concept.

BackgroundMost of general practitioners (GPs) use advertising in their waiting rooms for patient’s education purposes. Patients vaccinated against seasonal influenza have been gradually lessening. The objective of this trial was to assess the effect of an advertising campaign for influenza vaccination using posters and pamphlets in GPs’ waiting rooms.Methods and findingsRegistry based 2/1 cluster randomized controlled trial, a cluster gathering the enlisted patients of 75 GPs aged over 16 years. The trial, run during the 2014–2015 influenza vaccination campaign, compared patient’s awareness from being in 50 GPs’ standard waiting rooms (control group) versus that of waiting in 25 rooms from GPs who had received and exposed pamphlets and one poster on influenza vaccine (intervention group), in addition to standard mandatory information. The main outcome was the number of vaccination units delivered in pharmacies. Data were extracted from the SIAM-ERASME claim database of the Health Insurance Fund of Lille-Douai (France). The association between the intervention (yes/no) and the main outcome was assessed through a generalized estimating equation. Seventy-five GPs enrolled 10,597 patients over 65 years or suffering from long lasting diseases (intervention/control as of 3781/6816 patients) from October 15, 2014 to February 28, 2015. No difference was found regarding the number of influenza vaccination units delivered (Relative Risk (RR) = 1.01; 95% Confidence interval: 0.97 to 1.05; p = 0.561).ConclusionEffects of the monothematic campaign promoting vaccination against influenza using a poster and pamphlets exposed in GPs’ waiting rooms could not be demonstrated.

ObjectiveReliable data about general practitioners performing pap-tests are insufficient. A claim code for the achievement of pap-smears exists in France, but its use by general practitioners is not known. The main purpose of this study was to highlight independent factors associated with the achievement of pap-smears by the general practitioner (GP). We carried out a descriptive and analytic epidemiologic study in 347 GPs and their 244,889 patients, registered at the Health Care Insurance Fund of Flanders. The European Deprivation Index (EDI) in the area of GP’s surgeries was specified. All GPs were questioned by telephone about their performance of pap-tests. The claim database of the insurance fund was analyzed to describe characteristics of GPs.ResultsThe answer rate among questioned GPs was 98.8%. Pap-smears were performed in their surgeries by 182 GPs (53.1%). Among males, 45.7% performed pap-smears versus 78.4% of the female (adjusted odds-ratio = 4.5, p < 0.001). The mean rate of screened women in the target population was 44% when GPs were performing smears versus 42% when they were not (adjusted odds-ratio = 1.04, p = 0.03). Only 19.5% of GPs used the claim code. The number of patients, and the EDI were not associated with pap-smears. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02749110 (April 22, 2016)