Thirty years of family medicine publications in Israel (1975-2004): what, where, and how much?
J Am Board Fam Med. 2009 Jan-Feb;22(1):57-61
Authors: Pshetizky Y, Tandeter H, Tabenkin H, Vinker S, Lahad A, Karkabi K, Kitai E, Hermoni D, Shvartzman P
BACKGROUND: Departments of family medicine in Israel were established in the 1970s. Until now, little or no effort has been made to characterize the productivity of Israeli board-certified family medicine physicians in publishing peer-reviewed scientific articles. METHODS: Publications were identified by 2 methods. First, a PubMed search by names of current and past faculty from all the departments of family medicine in Israel (1975-2004). Secondly, all of the departments in Israel forwarded a list of all publications by their faculty (including those that do not appear in Medline). The abstracts of all publications were extracted and were separately and blindly evaluated by 2 reviewers. Publications were classified according to Medline citation, language, journal impact factor, and publication type. RESULTS: A total of 1165 publications were identified and analyzed. More than half of the articles were published in the last 10 years. Seventy-two percent were cited in Medline. Publications in English encompassed 64.7% of the publications, Hebrew 34.6%, and 0.7% other. Approximately 6% of the articles were published in journals with impact factor >/=3, with research articles accounting for 46.9%. The publication output of family medicine in Israel averaged 85.4 publications per 1000 family medicine physicians per year. Almost 70% of the articles were published in non-family medicine journals. Academically affiliated, board-certified family medicine physicians published at higher rates, averaging 334.3 per 1000 academic family medicine physicians per year (data available for 2000-2004 only). CONCLUSIONS: Publishing and research are important to the development of family medicine as an academic profession, in which Israeli family physicians show significant productivity.
19124634
More: continued here
Cultural influences in the aetiological beliefs of saudi arabian primary care patients about their symptoms: the association of religious and psychological beliefs.
J Relig Health. 2008 Sep;47(3):302-13
Authors: Alqahtani MM, Salmon P
Objective To develop a self-report questionnaire to measure the beliefs of Arabic primary care patients about the causes of their physical symptoms; to use this to quantify the beliefs of patients consulting their general practitioners (GPs) in Saudi Arabia; and to test whether patients with psychological problems differ from others in their beliefs, particularly religious and supernatural beliefs. Methods Consecutive patients (N = 224) completed a specially developed aetiological beliefs’ questionnaire. Patients were divided into two groups (cases and non-cases of emotional disorder) according to the GHQ-12. Results Religious and supernatural aspects of culture colour patients’ symptom beliefs: that their symptoms were a test or punishment from Allah’ was the most common belief. Even in non-cases, around half the patients also endorsed nerves and stress as a cause of their physical symptoms. Cases were more likely than non-cases to endorse items related to both religious and psychological factors. Conclusion There is no support for the view that Saudi Arabian patients explain symptoms supernaturally as a way of denying psychological factors. GPs and health professionals in Saudi primary care need to understand what patients believe to be the cause of their problems and to appreciate that religious and psychological beliefs are both very common. GPs should address psychological beliefs and concerns even with those patients who present physical symptoms.
19105021
More: continued here
Responses to language barriers in consultations with refugees and asylum seekers: a telephone survey of Irish general practitioners.
BMC Fam Pract. 2008 Dec 22;9(1):68
Authors: Macfarlane A, Glynn LG, Mosinkie PI, Murphy AW
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Refugees and asylum seekers experience language barriers in general practice. Qualitative studies have found that responses to language barriers in general practice are ad hoc with use of both professional interpreters and informal interpreters (patients’ relatives or friends). However, the scale of the issues involved is unknown. This study quantifies the need for language assistance in general practice consultations and examines the experience of, and satisfaction with, methods of language assistance utilized. METHODS: Data were collected by telephone survey with general practitioners in a regional health authority in Ireland between July-August 2004. Each respondent was asked a series of questions about consulting with refugees and asylum seekers, the need for language assistance and the kind of language assistance used. RESULTS: There was a 70% (n=56/80) response rate to the telephone survey. The majority of respondents (77%) said that they had experienced consultations with refugees and asylum seekers in which language assistance was required. Despite this, general practitioners in the majority of cases managed without an interpreter or used informal methods of interpretation. In fact, when given a choice general practitioners would more often choose informal over professional methods of interpretation despite the fact that confidentiality was a significant concern. CONCLUSION: The need for language assistance in consultations with refugees and asylum seekers in Irish general practice is high. General practitioners rely on informal responses. It is necessary to improve knowledge about the organisational contexts that shape general practitioners responses. We also recommend dialogue between general practitioners, patients and interpreters about the relative merits of informal and professional methods of interpretation so that general practitioners’ choices are responsive to the needs of patients with limited English.
19102735
More: continued here
