John Libbey Eurotext



Do general practitioners read primary sources of information? Volume 13, issue 8, Octobre 2017


1 Faculté de Médecine et de pharmacie, Université de Poitiers, Département de Médecine Générale, 86000 Poitiers
2 Conseil Scientifique du CNGE, Montreuil
3 Département de Médecine Générale, UFR de Bobigny
4 CESP, Univ. Paris-Sud, UVSQ, INSERM, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif
5 Université Paris Descartes, Laboratoire d’Ethique Médicale et de Médecine Légale, EA 4569, Paris
6 Département de Médecine Générale, UFR de Nantes
7 Département de Médecine Générale, UFR de Tours
8 Centre d’Investigation Clinique, INSERM 1414, CHU de Rennes et Université de Rennes 1, Rennes,
9 Département de Médecine Générale, UFR de Lyon
10 Département de Médecine Générale, UFR de Clermont-Ferrand
11 Centre d’investigation clinique CIC 1405 Inserm/UdA/CHU/CJP de Clermont-Ferrand
* Tirés à part
  • Key words: documentation, Evidence-based medicine, practice patterns, physicians
  • DOI : 10.1684/med.2017.237
  • Page(s) : 378-82
  • Published in: 2017

This is a cross-sectional descriptive survey by Internet questionnaire carried out from June to October 2015 to evaluate the sources of information used by general practitioners (IMGs) and university practitioners in general medicine (MSU) in order to increase their knowledge on the efficacy of seven drugs commonly used in primary care.

The study population was MSU and IMG from 4 universities (Poitiers, Lyon, Nantes and Strasbourg). The survey included the analysis of sources used to answer questions about drug efficacy.

The response rate was 16% and 476 questionnaires were analyzed (305 IMG and 171 MSU). The appeal to primary sources of information was cited in 6% (randomized clinical trial) to 8 % (meta-analyzes of RCTs) of cases. The three main sources or resources cited were: the HAS recommendations (41%), specialist colleagues or personal experience (43% and 39% respectively). There was little difference between the interns and the supervisors.

These results show that most IMGs and MSUs do not read primary sources of information to inform their knowledge about drug efficacy. The introduction of the teaching based on reading critical article in initial training does not seem to have influenced the use of these sources of information by the interns. It is therefore necessary that high-quality sources of secondary information should be available for evidence-based medicine (EBM) practice to become a reality.