Skin cancer rates are rising in XXX, particularly in XXX, where the incidence is three times higher than the national average. Farmers are particularly at risk, with the risk of melanoma increasing fivefold in thirty years. They are the target audience for the ‘XXX’ prevention campaign launched in 2022.Exploring sun protection habits and perceptions of skin cancer among farmers.Qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews conducted with farmers in XXX. The interview guide focused on sun protection practices, screening, knowledge of sun risks and the impact of existing campaigns. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using an approach inspired by grounded theory.Eight interviews were analysed. Sun protection was limited, intermittent, often partial, and heavily dependent on weather conditions. The risk of sun exposure was underestimated due to practical and economic constraints. Personal perceptions, such as the sensitivity or otherwise of certain areas of the body, influenced preventive behaviour. Exposure to a family history of skin cancer encouraged sun protection. Current campaigns were perceived as insufficiently adapted to the agricultural environment and not impactful enough. Participants suggested more targeted prevention, relayed through direct channels and supported by resource professionals such as general practitioners. Employers also had a role to play.Awareness of the risks associated with sun exposure remains low, contrasting with the reality of significant occupational exposure. To remedy this, prevention strategies must be varied and tailored to the target audience: general practitioners, professional organisations such as cooperatives, and direct channels such as text messages. Furthermore, skin cancer is recognised as an work-related illness for farmers in several European countries, which helps to raise awareness in the workplace. This recognition is currently under consideration in XXX.Sun exposure is the primary risk factor for skin cancer. Integrating strategies from the start of farmers' working lives is a major challenge in limiting the impact of skin cancer in this particularly exposed population.

Overmedicalisation refers to an excess of medicine with multiple facets: overdetection, overdiagnosis, overtreatment, and excessive care. This overconsumption of medical services has direct consequences for patients and for the planet, including anxiety, iatrogenesis, and antibiotic resistance. What is the opinion of French general practitioners (GP)?To observe and describe the perceptions of GPs and general practice residents (GPR) on overmedicalisation and their proposed solutions.A cross-sectional study using a real-time questionnaire (Wooclap®) was conducted among participants at a regional university conference on general practice (May 2025). Descriptive statistics reported quantitative data as means (± standard deviations) for continuous variables and as frequencies (percentages) for categorical variables. A qualitative thematic analysis described the solutions explored through an open-ended question and presented in a word cloud.Of the 300 conference attendees, 199 responded: 74 practising GPs including 38 university internship supervisors, 37 locum doctors and 92 residents. The average age was 34 (±11). On average, they estimated that 29% (±18) of their daily practice seemed to involve over-medicalisation and 16% (± 14) iatrogenesis. Almost all participants (96%) believed that over-medicalisation was a problem. Of the 455 responses collected regarding solutions, 33% targeted patient therapeutic education, 13% targeted deprescribing, and 12% targeted delisting.The originality of this study lies in its topical subject matter, which was addressed live with a panel of conference attendees. This exploratory aspect limits extrapolation to doctors in the region. The approximately 30% rate of overmedicalisation and the proposed solutions correspond to findings from German and American studies. Solutions to combat overmedicalisation focused mainly on patients and the healthcare system, as in other studies, with little self-reflection..Both GPs and GPRs are aware of overmedicalisation in their practice. However, the solutions proposed, mainly focused on patients and the healthcare system, show that work is still needed regarding the principle of the illusion of unique invulnerability.

In (XXX), preventive health examinations are offered at health centres to everyone. Following the check-up, a report may be sent to the patient's general practioner (GP). Fully covered by the National Health Service, this screening involves significant costs, raising questions about its place in primary care.To determine the value of preventive health assessments and their integration into the practice of GPs in (XXX).Qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews conducted with private GPs in (XXX) who had received at least one preventive health assessment report for one of their patients. Audio recordings followed by full transcripts were used to collect verbatim statements, which were analysed on an ongoing basis using phenomenology, with triangulation of coding. The interviews were continued until sufficient data had been collected.The fourteen participants expressed mixed opinions about this preventive consultation. It sometimes appears to be a useful tool for screening and reintegrating patients into the care pathway, particularly those who are not receiving regular follow-up. However, although the report is considered easy to read, it is not very useful for patients who are receiving regular follow-up, as it is redundant and does not contain any significant abnormalities. The electronic transmission of results, better coordination between health centres and GPs, and targeting the system at vulnerable users or those who do not need to consult often will optimise the resources dedicated to prevention in (XXX).The prevention assessment seems relevant but raises questions among GPs. In a healthcare system under pressure, it encourages better interprofessional cooperation and a change in the care relationship. General practitioners must learn to delegate their preventive healthcare responsibilities to other professionals : pharmacists, nurses and health centres, with complete confidence, so that they can focus on priority care tasks. Patients must be prepared to consult outside of any pathological context in order to benefit from time dedicated to individual prevention.National prevention policy must focus on vulnerable populations or those who are isolated from the healthcare system, and it is necessary to study the current impact of systematic health checks on morbidity and mortality.

Clinical trials are required to comply with overarching regulatory standards to ensure data quality and validity of results. For trials conducted in primary care, ensuring data quality can be particularly challenging due to the decentralization of study sites, limited research infrastructure, and constraints related to routine clinical practice.The aim of our study was to analyze the results of on-site monitoring visits from a clinical trial conducted in primary care, Statins in the Elderly (SITE), in order to quantify and describe deviations from good clinical research practices (GCRP).SITE study is a multicenter randomized clinical trial in which 304 general practitioner investigators recruited 1209 patients in France from June 2016 to December 2029 with 3 years of follow-up. Study monitoring was conducted remotely using the electronic Case Report Form. Two on-site monitoring visits were planned. The proportion of non-conformities, classified as minor, major, and critical, and the investigator profiles, including age, clinical research experience, and the number of patients enrolled, were recorded.Almost all investigators (300/304) received queries related to non-compliance with GCRP. These primarily concerned source documents, but also the manner in which the electronic case report form was completed. A total of 5746 non-conformities were recorded, with a median of 5 per investigator. Minor (22%), major (77%), and critical (1%) deviations were less frequent when the investigator was younger. 227 investigators included at least two patients, with a mean of 4.77 deviations per investigator, compared to 9.53 for the 77 investigators who included only one patient (p<0.001).Based on these results, targeted strategies could improve data quality in clinical trials conducted in primary care, notably through enhanced training and the simplification of data collection processes. It would also be beneficial to foster a culture of information sharing on data quality in order to establish more precise standards than the broad guidelines that currently guide clinical research practice.In France, primary care setting represents a challenge for clinical research. In order to improve data quality, data collection should be facilitated for optimal investigators participation in clinical research.

In XXX, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) have been steadily increasing since the early 2000s. Globally, the WHO estimates that one million people contract an STI every day. Often asymptomatic and potentially responsible for long-term complications, these infections require increased screening among the general population. In this context, health authorities have introduced new recommendations on sexual health. As the first point of contact in the healthcare system, general practitioners play a central role in the detection, prevention and screening of STIs.To explore the experiences, perceptions and approaches to STIs in general practice, from the perspective of patients and general practitioners in the XXX region.Qualitative study conducted with patients and general practitioners. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients, followed by an analysis inspired by grounded theory. Doctors participated in in-depth interviews, which were analysed using a phenomenological interpretation approach.Fourteen interviews were conducted (7 patients, 7 doctors). Patients emphasised the importance of the role of general practitioners in STI screening and expressed high expectations in this regard. Several obstacles emerged: embarrassment, age difference, fear of judgement, and lack of time during consultations. Doctors described various strategies for introducing the subject of STIs, notably by taking advantage of opportunities that arise during consultations. They acknowledged that they do not systematically address the subject, particularly with certain profiles such as couples or elderly people. Although they generally stated that they felt comfortable doing so, they adjusted their approach according to patients' reactions and experiences.The results reveal an asymmetry between patients' expectations and doctors' daily practice. The approach to STIs remains conditioned by relational and contextual obstacles, limiting systematic screening, which is nevertheless recommended. Consultations appear to be an area that is still insufficiently exploited for proactive discussion of sexual health.The study highlights persistent barriers, on the part of both patients and doctors, to addressing STIs in general practice. Better promotion and dissemination of existing measures, as well as structured opportunities to integrate screening into routine practice, could encourage more systematic dialogue about STIs during consultations.

Since 2013, the French National Authority for Health recommends a one-time, targeted opportunistic screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) among at-risk patients. Participation rates, however, remain low. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is expanding in general practice, and AAA screening performed by trained general practitioners (GPs) demonstrates diagnostic accuracy comparable to that of radiologists. This study is part of the randomized DACEP trial, which compares AAA screening uptake when performed by GPs during consultation versus referral to radiology.To explore GPs’ perceptions of the feasibility of AAA screening in consultation after a brief training session and provision of an ultraportable ultrasound device.A longitudinal mixed-methods study was conducted over 18 months, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative data were collected through questionnaires administered before and after training, and after 18 months of practice. Perceived feasibility was assessed across three dimensions: integration into consultation, performance, and interpretation. For each screening, a questionnaire evaluated confidence, image quality, and ease of integration. The qualitative component consisted of semi-structured interviews analyzed using an interpretative phenomenological approach.Twelve GPs were trained and equipped with ultraportable ultrasound devices. Training did not significantly modify perceived feasibility, and prior ultrasound experience had no measurable effect. However, perceived ease of integration, image quality, and confidence in image interpretation all increased significantly with the number of screenings performed. After 18 months, 64% of GPs wished to continue AAA screening using the device, and all intended to use ultrasound for other indications. Interviews highlighted enthusiasm for POCUS and identified barriers such as time constraints, irregular practice, and low prevalence of eligible patients. Facilitators included regular use, refresher training, and dedicated preventive consultation time.An ambivalence emerged between general practitioners’ willingness to integrate AAA screening and the difficulty of implementing it sustainably in practice. The study’s external validity is limited because the doctor’s patients were mostly young and female and therefore less eligible for AAA screeningDespite strong interest from GPs, sustainable integration of AAA screening remains challenged by organizational barriers. Embedding AAA screening within a dedicated preventive consultation, supported by a multifactorial COM-B–based behavioral approach, could enhance long-term adoption in primary care.

As a primary care provider and through their patient-centered approach, general practitioners are at the heart of preventive medicine. In France, the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) does not publish recommendations specifically dedicated to screening. These are disseminated in various types of guidelines, most often focused on the general management of a condition. Thus, no comprehensive synthesis of French screening recommendations existed in 2024.To identify HAS screening recommendations, describe their main characteristics, and compare them with United States Preventive Service Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations.Systematic review. The HAS and USPSTF websites were screened in January 2023. Recommendations that included a screening recommendation were included. Updated recommendations, recommendations for identifying complications (severity diagnosis) or causes (etiological diagnosis) of a health problem were excluded.We included 53 HAS recommendations and 67 USPSTF recommendations, covering 74 and 65 conditions respectively. HAS recommended screening for 67 conditions, compared with 30 for the USPSTF; 6 versus 7 conditions were not recommended, and 1 versus 28 were judged to have an uncertain benefit–risk balance. Only 21 conditions were recommended for screening by both agencies. HAS recommended screening for 14 of the 28 conditions for which the USPSTF considered the balance of benefits and harms to be uncertain, and for 33 additional conditions not evaluated by the USPSTF, including 11 neonatal disorders. Only 25% of HAS screening recommendations had a graded level of evidence, 71% of which were based on expert opinion, and screening periodicity was undefined in 26% of them. Most HAS screenings (82%) were opportunistic rather than organized.HAS recommends screening for far more conditions than USPSTF, often on weak or non-graded evidence and within heterogeneous guidelines that complicate retrieval and offer of screenings by general practitioners. These differences reflect the absence of dedicated screening guidelines using a standardized methodology and transparent grading of benefits and harms in France.French screening policy should be aligned with international best practice. It requires reliable screening recommendations that clearly grade evidence, consider benefits and harms, and support shared decision-making in primary care.