BackgroundHigh levels of outpatient antibiotic use remain observed in many European countries. Several studies have shown a strong relationship between antibiotic use and bacterial resistance. AimTo assess the long-term effect of a standardised educational seminar on antibiotic prescriptions by GPs. Design and settingRandomised controlled trial of 171 GPs (of 203 initially randomised) in France. MethodGPs in the control group (n = 99) received no antibiotic prescription recommendation. Intervention group GPs (n = 72) attended an interactive seminar presenting evidencebased guidelines on antibiotic prescription for respiratory infections. The proportion of prescriptions containing an antibiotic in each group and related costs were compared to the baseline up to 30 months following the intervention. Data were obtained from the National Health Insurance System database. ResultsIn the intervention group, 4-6 months after the intervention, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of prescriptions containing an antibiotic from 15.2 ± 5.4% to 12.3 ± 5.8% (-2.8% [95% CI = -3.8 to -1.9], P<0.001). By contrast, an increase was observed in controls from 15.3 ± 6.0 to 16.4 ± 6.7% (+1.1% [95% CI = +0.4 to +1.8], P<0.01), resulting in a between-group difference of 3.93% ([95% CI = 2.75 to 5.11], P<0.001). The between-group difference was maintained 30 months after intervention (1.99% [95% CI = 0.56 to 3.42], P<0.01). Persistence of the intervention effect over the entire study period was confirmed in a hierarchical multivariate analysis. ConclusionThis randomised trial shows that a standardised and interactive educational seminar results in a long-term reduction in antibiotic prescribing and could justify a large-scale implementation of this intervention.

Educating GPs in the French adaptation of the SDM programme improves glycaemic control in a primary care setting, without significantly increasing healthcare costs.

A single, standardized and interactive educational seminar targeting GPs significantly decreased antibiotic use for RTIs after 4.5 years.

Background:Contextual socio-economic factors, health-care access, and general practitioner (GP) involvement may influence colonoscopy uptake and its timing after positive faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Our objectives were to identify predictors of delayed or no colonoscopy and to assess the role for GPs in colonoscopy uptake.Methods:We included all residents of a French district with positive FOBTs (n=2369) during one of the two screening rounds (2007–2010). Multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to identify individual and area-level predictors of delayed colonoscopy, no colonoscopy, and no information on colonoscopy.Results:A total of 998 (45.2%) individuals underwent early, 989 (44.8%) delayed, and 102 (4.6%) no colonoscopy; no information was available for 119 (5.4%) individuals. Delayed colonoscopy was independently associated with first FOBT (odds ratio, (OR)), 1.61; 95% confidence interval ((95% CI), 1.16–2.25); and no colonoscopy and no information with first FOBT (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.02–3.97), FOBT kit not received from the GP (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.67–3.14), and socio-economically deprived area (OR, 3.17; 95% CI, 1.98–5.08). Colonoscopy uptake varied significantly across GPs (P=0.01).Conclusion:Socio-economic factors, GP-related factors, and history of previous FOBT influenced colonoscopy uptake after a positive FOBT. Interventions should target GPs and individuals performing their first screening FOBT and/or living in socio-economically deprived areas.

Differences in perceptions and attitudes related to breast cancer screening partially explain why some women choose opportunistic screening or no screening. General practitioners and gynaecologists are in a unique position to provide individually tailored preventative messages to improve participation in organized screening.