OBJECTIVES: To study the difficulties faced by general practitioners to detect and report asbestos-related cancers, focusing on the influence of patients' tobacco use, physicians' training and role perception. METHOD: Telephone survey conducted among 486 general practitioners and pulmonologists randomly selected in the French region of Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, with: 1) a standardized questionnaire on their behaviors, attitudes and practices in the field of occupational health; 2) a clinical case (case vignette) about a lung cancer patient with occupational asbestos exposure. Two alternative versions of the clinical case varying only in the patient's smoking status were presented randomly to two subgroups of general practitioners and pulmonologists. The primary variable examined was the physician recommendation that the patient described in the vignette file an occupational disease claim. RESULTS: The response rate was 64.4% among general practitioners and 62.5% among pulmonologists. In multiple logistic regressions, the recommendation to file an occupational disease claim was significantly associated with specialty (OR = 4,46; 95% CI: 2.38-8.37 for pulmonologists versus general practitioners), patient's smoking status (OR = 3.15; 95% CI: 2.11-4.70, for non-smokers versus smokers), physician's workload (OR =1,8; 95% CI:1.17-2.88, for physicians examining less than 25 patients per day versus those examining more than 25) and role perception (OR = 2.00; 95% CI:1.22-3.27, for those who considered completing occupational disease medical certificates to be part of their role versus those who did not). CONCLUSION: For a certain number of physicians, tobacco use often over-shadows the role of environmental carcinogens in the development of cancers. Those responsible for initial and continuing medical education should give occupational health higher priority in their programs. Tools designed to help physicians detecting and managing occupational diseases should be developed and disseminated.
OBJECTIVES: To study the difficulties faced by general practitioners to detect and report asbestos-related cancers, focusing on the influence of patients' tobacco use, physicians' training and role perception. METHOD: Telephone survey conducted among 486 general practitioners and pulmonologists randomly selected in the French region of Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, with: 1) a standardized questionnaire on their behaviors, attitudes and practices in the field of occupational health; 2) a clinical case (case vignette) about a lung cancerpatient with occupational asbestos exposure. Two alternative versions of the clinical case varying only in the patient's smoking status were presented randomly to two subgroups of general practitioners and pulmonologists. The primary variable examined was the physician recommendation that the patient described in the vignette file an occupational disease claim. RESULTS: The response rate was 64.4% among general practitioners and 62.5% among pulmonologists. In multiple logistic regressions, the recommendation to file an occupational disease claim was significantly associated with specialty (OR = 4,46; 95% CI: 2.38-8.37 for pulmonologists versus general practitioners), patient's smoking status (OR = 3.15; 95% CI: 2.11-4.70, for non-smokers versus smokers), physician's workload (OR =1,8; 95% CI:1.17-2.88, for physicians examining less than 25 patients per day versus those examining more than 25) and role perception (OR = 2.00; 95% CI:1.22-3.27, for those who considered completing occupational disease medical certificates to be part of their role versus those who did not). CONCLUSION: For a certain number of physicians, tobacco use often over-shadows the role of environmental carcinogens in the development of cancers. Those responsible for initial and continuing medical education should give occupational health higher priority in their programs. Tools designed to help physicians detecting and managing occupational diseases should be developed and disseminated.
Authors: Olivia Pérol; Barbara Charbotel; Lionel Perrier; Sandrine Bonnand; Elodie Belladame; Virginie Avrillon; Paul Rebattu; Frédéric Gomez; Géraldine Lauridant; Maurice Pérol; Beatrice Fervers Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-01-04 Impact factor: 3.390