Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jan 24;20(1):e0315926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315926

Cross- analyzing the opinions and experiences of nurses, physiotherapists, dentists, midwives, and pharmacists with respect to addictive disorder screening in primary care: A qualitative study

Agathe Edeline 1, Amelie Tripault 1, Jean Pierre Lebeau 1,2, Maxime Pautrat 1,2,*
Editor: Mohammad Sidiq3
PMCID: PMC11759999  PMID: 39854522

Abstract

Early addiction disorders screening is recommended in primary care. The goal of health system reform is to include allied health professionals in this screening. The appropriation of their new role has not yet been explored. The main aim of this study was to examine the perspective of allied health professionals in primary care on the screening of addictive disorders. This qualitative study inspired by the grounded theory was carried out between August 2018 and July 2019. Semi-structured individual interviews and focus groups were organized to include of primary care health professionals (physiotherapist, nurse, midwife, pharmacist, and dentist). Thirteen semi-structured individual interviews and four focus groups were recorded and coded. The paramedics described the advantages of their professions for the detection of addictions: home visits, prescription history, habit of intimate subjects, close consultations, etc. Despite daily practice-specific observation posts, they sometimes remained silent witnesses, and their helplessness hindered identification. They felt both closer to the patients and less legitimate than the doctors in dealing with addictions. Finally, their desire for a multidisciplinary approach was limited by the fear of disturbing the doctor and the confusion between betrayal and medical secrecy. Paramedical professionals claimed to have a complementary role to play in identifying addictions. Their reluctance echoed the concept of self-censorship, already described in studies with addictologists and patients. These results must be compared with the opinions of general practitioners and patients.

Introduction

The global burden of addiction disorders is based on their morbidity, mortality, and social costs [1,2]. Alcohol, opioids, and cannabis are the most prevalent, with a risk factor for premature death and disability [35]. Non-substance-use addictions, such as gambling, share neurobiological and genetic similarities with substance use disorders and have a high rate of comorbidity [6]. The fifth edition of the DSM described eleven criteria for diagnosing dependence, for both drug-related disorders and non-drug-related behaviours [7]. These criteria comes together four: loss of control, physical dependence, social problems, and risky consumption.

Early screening of patients with an addictive disorder reduces their morbidity and mortality and improves their quality of life [810]. The Screening Brief Intervention and Referral Treatment (SBIRT) is a prevention tool for professionals, to identify risky substance use among the patients, to reduce it. It has been recommended since 2008, but remains little used by primary care physicians [11,12]. Some addiction screening tests have been validated in primary care [13]. However many already known obstacles to addictive disorder screening in primary care remain, such as lack of time, a feeling of inefficiency, and patient reluctance [1419].

The World Health Organization (WHO) report of 2018 prompted the implementation of a new policy to prevent addictive disorders [3]. Also in 2018, the French healthcare system reform aimed to systematize and strengthen the screening of addictive disorders, by primary care professionals [20]. General practitioners are no longer the only screeners [20]. Since 2016, dental surgeons, nurses, midwives, and physiotherapists, have been called upon to carry out this screening [21]. In this way, they can prescribe nicotine substitution treatments [20]. Pharmacists are now involved through medication reconciliation [22], such as chronic treatment in addictology. In France, in 2019, advanced practice nurses and medical assistant positions were created to improve the management of chronic conditions, such as addictive disorders [23,24]. The appropriation of this new role of nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists, midwives, and dentists, has been not explored yet.

The aim of this study was to explore the point of view of primary care paramedics concerning the screening of addictive disorders.

We want to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each primary care profession, in dealing with addictive disorders. Understanding what healthcare professionals think about the screening of addictive disorders, in their day-to-day practice, could help to identify some unknown barriers in their appropriation of the SBIRT protocol. As a first step, it would be useful to explore their ability to screen their patients,and possibly, develop a relevant intervention to encourage them to discuss addiction with their patients and improve early screening.

Methods

This qualitative study recruited healthcare professionals between August 2018 and July 2019. Using a grounded theory approach, enabled investigators to build a model of healthcare professional’s perspectives, on addictive disorder screening in primary care.

The study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the ethic committee”“Espace de Réflexion Éthique de la Région Centre”, Tours, France (approval number: 2017 059). It is also registered with the Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés. This research exploring the practices and views of healthcare professionals, did not require authorization from the Institutional Review Board. Each participant signed an informed consent form stating the goals, and reasons for conducting the research. The audio records were destroyed after transcription.

Participants

Healthcare professionals included physiotherapists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, and dentists. They were recruited from primary care practices in the Centre Val de Loire, Normandy, and Ile-de France Regions, France. The first professionals were contacted by phone from the author’s caregiver networks, then, others were recruited using a snowball technique.

We conducted eleven individual semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals, either by telephone or at their place of practice (S1 Appendix). There were seven women and six men, aged between twenty-six and sixty We also conducted multidisciplinary interviews via focus groups including midwives, nurses, and physiotherapists. There were nineteen women and six men, aged between twenty-five and fifty-seven. Great variability in terms of sex, age, method, and practice characteristics, was sought for each professional.

All participants were informed about the study and its objectives and provided informed consent. Only four midwives refused to participate because they did not feel concerned by substance use disorders, in their practice.

Data collection

Focus groups have the advantage of encouraging interaction between participants, and stimulating inter- and intra-disciplinary exchanges. This method exposes studies to the usual opinion leader and social desirability biases. To limit this desirability bias, along with any external biases, we conducted the focus group in a convivial atmosphere, around lunch. Individual interviews have the advantage of guaranteeing intimacy, spontaneity, and freedom of response during exchanges, on a subject charged with representations, such as addiction.

The initial guild interview was developed by all the authors, and tested on two volunteer caregivers. It included an icebreaker question, which was ‘Tell me the story of the last patient with an addiction problem you saw?’, an invitation to share experiences of successful and unsuccessful patient screening and their role in the identification process. New reminders were added to explore the concepts emerging from the initial analyses. All interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. All verbatim was coded to anonymize participant identity using ph, E1 for pharmacists’s interview, for example, FG1 for the first focus group. A personal logbook collected field notes during the research. At the end of the research, all participants were invited to a presentation of verbatims and results, and some of them attended.

Analysis

The analysis prism was based on the grounded theory approach, which is a research method concerned with the generation of theory through the collecting, and analysis of data. A coding tree was built from many citations of verbatims. These codes were organized in conceptual categories. Finally, a conceptualization was drawn up, based on schematic representations available in the literature. We used the NVivo 11® QSR software for verbatim coding. The scientific validity criteria of the grounded theory analysis were met and thirty two out of thirty two items in the COREQ grid were completed (S2 Appendix), such as data triangulation and inductive analysis [25].

Results

Thirteen individual interviews and four focus groups were conducted. Data sufficiency was achieved from the eleventh interview, and the third focus group. The characteristics of the participants are detailed in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Characteristics of the individual interview population.

Profession, gender and age Place of practice Type of work Interview time Collected by
E1 Ph, Women 28 (ph,E1) 85 Rural, ambulatory 13 min AT
E2 Ph, Women 37 (ph,E2) 85 Rural, ambulatory 16 min AT
E3 N, Men 60 (n,E3) 37 Rural, ambulatory 31 min AE
E4 MW, Women 31 (mw,E4) 18 Semi-rural, ambulatory 22 min AT
E5 Ph, Men 51 (ph,E5) 27 Rural, ambulatory 20 min AE
E6 MW, Women 57 (mw,E6) 37 Urban, employee in PMI 48 min AE
E7 D, Women 35 (d,E7) 37 Semi-urban, ambulatory 21 min AT
E8 D, Men 51 (d,E8) 45 Semi-rural, ambulatory 21 min AT
E9 Ph, Men 28 (ph,E9) 76 Urban, ambulatory 43 min AE
E10 Pt, Men 41 (pt, E10) 37 Urban, employee and academic 49 min AT
E11 D, Men 59 (d,E11) 18 Rural, ambulatory and academic 20 min AE
E12 N, Women 49 (n,E12) 37 Semi-rural 47 min AT
E13 Pt, Women 26 (pt,E13) 75 Urban 23 min AE

N : Nurse, MW : MidWife, D : Dentist, Ph : Pharmacist, Pt : Physiotherapist.

AT : Amélie Tripault ; AE : Agathe Edeline.

Table 2. Characteristics of the focus group population.

Gender Place of practice Type of work Interview time Collected by
FG1 N, Women 42 (n1,FG1)
N, Women 43 (n2,FG1)
N, Women 53 (n3,FG1)
N, Women 54 (n5,FG1)
85 Rural, ambulatory 53 min AT
FG2 Pt, Men, 45 (pt1,FG2)
Pt, Women, 32 (pt2,FG2)
N, Men 49 (n1,FG2)
N, Men 52 (n2,FG2)
N, Women, 50 (n3,FG2)
N, Women 55 (n4,FG2)
N, Women 53 (n5,FG2)
37 Rural, ambulatory 50 min AE
FG3 MW, Women 29 (mw1,FG3)
MW, Women 29 (mw2,FG3)
MW, Women 41 (mw3,FG3)
MW, Women 47 (mw4,FG3)
Pt, Women 39 (pt1,FG3)
Pt, Men 35 (pt2,FG3)
N, Women 57 (n1,FG3)
37 Urban, ambulatory 93 min AT
FG4 Pt, Men 25 (pt1,FG4)
Pt, Men 26 (pt2,FG4)
Pt, Women 29 (pt3,FG4)
N, Women 37 (n1,FG4)
N, Women 42 (n2,FG4)
N, Women 46 (n3,FG4)
N, Women, 53 (n4,FG4)
37 Urban, ambulatory 43 min AE

N : Nurse, MW : MidWife, Pt : Physiotherapist.

AT : Amélie Tripault ; AE : Agathe Edeline.

An addiction observation post specific to each professional

Nurses and midwives described the advantages of home visits, where it was possible to observe people’s privacy: “Yeah, because you get the smell, the bottles, even though they try to hide everything.” (nE3) and "I find that people confide more at home, they welcome you into their homes, we’re in their homes, uh, we’re around the table, even on their couch" (mwE6). The pharmacy sometimes became an observatory in the heart of the village: "Through the window, you can see them anyway, eh, the patients. It overlooks the street and opposite there is a small bar, so you can see what they do during the day" (phE9). Pharmacists also observed the evolution of addictive disorders thanks to the history of prescriptions: "Drug addictions are necessarily easier to detect since we have the history" (phE9). Dentists observed the signs of substance use through the patients’ oral condition: "Well, I can see the mouth, they have a lot of nicotine in their mouths. You can smell it on their breath (laughs)" (dE8). The physiotherapists noted the no-shows of patients with problematic consumption: "It’s crazy because, as he didn’t arrive, I went to get my bread and I met him across the street, at the PMU…" (ptFG4).

Caregivers’ reticence about screening

Asking the question is like dropping a bomb

The nurses were reluctant to talk about addictions for fear of the patient’s reaction: "Afterwards, it’s true that sometimes, it feels like you’re throwing a bomb and then, you’re a little afraid of what it’s going to bring out in you" (nFG2), or "And then, there are reactions that are quite violent () I’ve had, What do you care?, I need a blood test, you come in to treat my leg, the rest is none of your business”(nFG2).

No questions if no solutions

The perceived lack of a solution when faced with admitted addiction, led professionals to not ask the question: "Maybe we’re not all very comfortable talking about this subject, because we don’t know what to do with it afterward" (ptE10) and "I had asked him to talk to more people about it. Because, what are we supposed to do about it? Not much, you know! You have no treatment, you have nothing! And, uh, it’s tough" (phE9).

Do I go for it, or don’t I?

It’s not my place

Pharmacists didn’t always feel legitimate in dealing with addictions, because patients "also see them as a bit of a salesman so that’s the tricky part" (phE9). Likewise, for dentists: "Dentists taking care of addictionsIt’s not yet becoming the norm! In people’s eyes, we’re still technicians!" (dE11).

The interviews revealed an approach to care that is sometimes organo-centric or prescription-centric. The nurses said "We come for the care and in general, it suits them very, very well, that we just come for the care" (nFG4), "If we ask, we’re out of the loop. Outside the act for which we came to see them" (nFG2) and "We don’t come for the addiction, we come for the bandage, for the injection, for the antibiotics" (nFG4). The physiotherapists admitted, "I don’t necessarily bring up the subject if it doesn’t have an impact on what I do" (ptFG3). When it occurred, the approach to addictions was limited to the usual technical field of the career: "I do more smoking prevention because it impacts the gums and the headaches, it affects organs that I treat (laughs)" (dE7). Faced with a rise in dosage, one pharmacist confided to us that she was not going against the medical prescription: "It’s hard to know where we stop, well, when do we refuse to dispense prescribed drugs?" (phE1).

When the patient spontaneously brought up the subject of addictions, dentists said that it was not their role: "I don’t really know what makes them tell me" (dE11) and "I don’t mind if they tell me about it, after all, it’s not really my field" (dE7). They showed a certain disinterest: "I don’t remember addictions, because in my opinion, uh, you come across them without worrying about them" (dE11).

The healthcare professionals blamed each other, the subject being more and more the colleague’s business: "It’s not necessarily up to me to broach the subject, he has a GP, it’s not necessarily up to the physiotherapist to be the first, it’s not me who gives him primary care for this kind of problem" (ptFG3), or "If I don’t see him again for a year, uh, it’s complicated. It’s not like a general practitioner or a physiotherapist, who sees their patient more regularly…" (dE7).

The anchoring of the doctor’s status was strong in their minds: "I think authority is with the doctor!" (phE9). The doctor seemed to be more legitimate than paramedics, in dealing with the subject of addictions: "If the doctor asks, it’s not indiscretion" (nFG2) and "The patient will accept more that the doctor asks the questions; it’s their position as a doctor that does that, and it’s more in line with overall management" (nFG2).

And when I try, it doesn’t work

Healthcare professionals no longer brought up addictions because of the frustration induced by the failures experienced. Dentists were saying the same thing: "Because there are lots of little actions like that, you say to yourself, it’s like talking to a wall, it’s the same thing!" (dE11) and "Well, if they don’t want to, at any given moment, it’s not my fault, that’s all () if people don’t want to seize the helping hand, it’s too late, it’s not our problem (laughs)" (dE7). Or nurses: "We try and then after a while, we stop trying" (nE12), " They haven’t realized the change, well not at all, we can feel that it’s not going to work anyway" (nFG4), "It’s true that sometimes we work a bit in the dark ourselves, eh?" (nFG1).

The meeting

A question of feeling

In the approach to addictions, being a paramedic could be an advantage: "Because often there is a small step to take, I think, and it’s true that going to the GP is a bit like going to see your parents, and taking responsibility for what you’ve done, so you’re ashamed of what you’ve done" (phE9). The paramedics thought that patients were sometimes afraid of their doctors: "And when you ask: and you told the doctor?, well no!. He’s afraid, he’ll get chewed out (laughs)". The nurses had the impression of being: "almost intimate with them, even more sometimes than with the doctor, because we have less of the, you know, the father figure of the doctor" (phE9). "And then, we don’t have any status, we’re a little lower than the doctor in their minds. We’re closer to them, we’re almost at the same level, we’re their physiotherapist, their nurse, their midwife, but we could be their “buddy”. It’s true, yeah, we go into their homes, we’re buddies" (nFG4).

Ultimately, proximity and personality seemed more important than status: "I know that the little grannies at the office call me by my first name, we kiss each other, well, sometimes they show up, they’re isolated, the family is far away, so you’re the grandson, you drop by from time to time. They bring you pancakes, well, you still have a relationship that’s much more intimate, much more personal" (ptFG4). "I think that between two people, there are things that happen, and things that don’t happen" (nE12).

The ‘bonus’ of each profession

Besides, each profession has its advantages. It was about physical contact for the physiotherapists: "it’s true that in physiotherapy, we are calm with the patients, we are close, we are tactile, especially in the office" (ptE13), "the fact of touching, you enter into the intimacy of the other, and very often at some point, people end up confiding" (ptFG3). For midwives, it was the habit of addressing intimate issues: "We become intimate with each other. Because we ask them how their sexuality is going, so in the end addictions are less intimate" (mwFG3). And the opportunity to act during a privileged time frame: "There are people for whom the time of pregnancy is a sufficiently powerful motivation, to decrease or stop. Besides, it’s a discourse they hear well at this point in their lives" (mwE6). The nurses had the advantage of receiving confidences: "I hear a lot of people say that there’s not enough listening at the GP level so they say. Well, at least with you we can talk” (nFG2). The ‘bonus’ for pharmacists was their knowledge of medications: "We really have warnings, we know that a certain medication is more likely to cause addiction, we can really spot this kind of thing" (phE1). Midwives, physiotherapists, and pharmacists, also highlighted their availability: "During pregnancy follow-up, you see them regularly, so you can discuss it more easily" (mwE4), "Patients have more time to ask questions at the pharmacy" (phE2) and "What is interesting in the physiotherapist’s job, is that we have time with patients repeatedly" (ptE10).

Individual management sometimes far from care

When meetings took place between professionals and patients, a certain inertia could eventually result, where respect for liberties seemed to prevail over the prevention of an emerging disorder: "Adults who are adults and vaccinated, and who smoke a joint or two a month, that’s their problem, honestly, uh, it’s like someone who’s going to drink a little bit too much, who gets a little drunk during the month, well, as long as he doesn’t drive, let’s say, it’s his liver, it’s his organs, he does what he wants (Laughs)" (dE7), or "Everyone is free to do what they want! If it only puts their life in danger, it’s no problem" (nE3).

The meaning of certain comments showed a singular approach. Pharmacists sometimes adopted a commercial discourse as "clients on methadone…" (phE5). Nurses and dentists appeared to be looking for confessions, rather than confidences: "We tried to reach out to him a little bit to get him to tell us the truth" (nFG4), "depending on how much alcohol the patient confessed" (dE7). Sharing the identification of a substance use disorder, among the healthcare team, was not systematic, or criticized as denunciation: "We’re not cops, sopeople do what they want" (nE3), "it’s not in my values to denounce people, so…" (nE3), "We’re not here to be the police. (Laughs)" (nFG1). Some people seemed to confuse betrayal with doctor-patient confidentiality: "It would really feel like betrayal to me, if we called the doctor behind the patient’s back" (nFG4).

Debriefing

There was, however, a desire for coordination and teamwork: "We often tell them that we are a team in front of them. Yes, we talk about your health as a team, so what you tell me, okay, it’s professional secrecy, but if we consider that the doctor needs to know, we’ll let him know" (nFG4). "We’re all here to participate in the same thing, because if we detect them, advise them, or direct them, at some point, they’re going to pass into the hands of the doctors" (nFG2). Insufficient screening for addictions in primary care is reflected in the fact that participants had less to say about debriefing.

Discussion

This study explored the practice and experience of screening addictive disorders, by primary care paramedics. A specific observation post was found for each paramedical professional. The identification of an addictive disorder requires taking the time to observe. Being a local healthcare provider allows immersion in people’s real lives, and home visits give them a privileged position, for observing risk behaviours [26,27]. In this respect, primary care paramedics recognize that they have a role to play in identifying addictions, which is complementary to that of doctors. These strengths, along with profession-driven competencies in screening practice, have already been described in a review of literature, on nurses and social workers [28]. However, there is ambivalence in their discourse, since they feel it is not their role to address the subject. Thus, they sometimes remain silent witnesses. If they consider that the doctor can ask questions that are not related to the reason for the consultation, primary care paramedics feel the duty to remain within the framework of the care they are providing. They do not allow themselves to do what they think is the responsibility of the general practitioner. Paramedics’ reluctance to broaden their scope of practice in this field was also described [29]. These representations must be taken into account, to enable the delegation of tasks to be developed concerning technical procedures, but also the patient-centric care desired by the reform of the healthcare system [30]. To enhance the ability and willingness to engage therapeutically with patients with addictive disorders, adequate undergraduate courses and promotion of interprofessional models that optimize the strengths of each profession, are already desired [28,29]. In this manner, screening, as recommended by the SBIRT strategies, cannot be limited to unilateral screening, already conceptualized in the discourse of addictologists, where only the healthcare provider notes the disorder [3133]. A "shared screening" would allow us to engage in dynamic care [34].

The reluctance of caregivers expressed here echoes the concept of self-censorship already found in the study exploring the point of view of addictologists [33]. The fear of rushing patients, of making them feel guilty, of not knowing how to react, of running out of time, of breaking the healthcare provider-patient bond were recalled by the paramedical professionals. Exploring their discourse directly brings a new origin to this self-censorship: paramedics do not feel as legitimate as general practitioners in dealing with these intimate subjects. A feeling of inaudibility towards the patient is also expressed. This limit, perceived as a transgression, has already been described in fields other than addict [35]. Thus, everyone keeps a practice circumscribed to their usual acts and develops an organo-centric vision, like technicians: care prescribed by the doctor for nurses and physiotherapists, pregnancy for midwives, prescription for pharmacists, and the oral sphere for dentists. This prism of restrictive activity induces a professional scotoma responsible for a trivialization: not asking the question of an addiction reinforces the disorder. For the patient, the caregiver’s omission means that he or she is condoning consumption [3640].

The time at which the addiction is confided by the patient to the caregiver seems to be influenced by several factors. According to professionals, the relationship established with the patient appears more conditioned by personality, than by status. It was recalled that a listening, caring, equal and non-stigmatizing relationship is necessary, which had also been found when exploring the point of view of addicted patients [19]. Proximity identification with an empathic and patient-centric approach would be more effective, than a systematic approach, the main thing being to move away from a possible social identity [40]. Paramedics also consider that they are more affordable, and would have more time to devote to the patient, to develop this relationship conducive to their disclosure. A buddy relationship between caregiver and patient would encourage disclosure. A recent qualitative study that asked patients about the ideal conditions for disclosure, also reported that patients preferred to confide in a trusted caregiver, rather than a specialist seen on an ad hoc basis [41]. This facilitating proximity in the patient’s disclosure expressed, here is in contrast to what addictologists described as a relational routine not very conductive to disclosure: the more intimate one would become, the less one would dare to ask intimate questions, despite the climate of trust [33]. It is not surprising that the opinions of primary and secondary care professionals diverge, and it is reassuring that a long-term follow-up relationship does not preclude comprehensive patient management.

The management of an addictive disorder by paramedics sometimes appears to be far from the recommendations: when confessing to an addiction, but there does not seem to be any immediate bio-psycho-social repercussions according to the paramedics, these latter seem to minimize and trivialize this consumption disorder. While the proximity relationship facilitates disclosure, it would also appear to induce inertia in their care and in the sharing of information within the medical team. The paramedics’ discourse on addictology includes all the elements that lead to therapeutic inertia, such as lack of training and motivation, as in the case of other chronic conditions monitored in primary care, such as hypertension [42]. A recent study has shown that an interprofessional SBIRT training program, can provide gains in terms of knowledge, confidence, and skills, and thus reduce the delay in screening [43].

Strengths and weaknesses

Qualitative research has some weaknesses and specificities. We tried to limit investigation bias by using open questions and an open frame. We also attempted to limit the verbatim interpretation bias by using independent coding, by two researchers blinded to each other’s decision, and data triangulation. Unexpected comments showed that the exchanges were free. These focus groups seemed appropriate for nurses, physiotherapists, and midwives, whose practices share certain commonalities, such as scheduled consultations and home visits. They could thus, easily exchange their practice, even though the professions differed. The flexibility of the individual interviews also allows for more personalized follow-up, to confirm or deepen certain elements, that emerged during the focus groups. This mixed format was well-accepted by participants. Participants working in the authors’ close social network may have induced a social desirability bias during the interviews or focus groups. Ideally, participants unknown to the authors should be recruited.

Using a grounded analysis theory allowed us to access the details of the different points of view, to explicit the “how”, and not only the “why” as the usual “insufficiently trained" described by thematic analysis in a recent study [29]. The choice of grounded theory analysis was justified by the search for the conceptualization of tracking, by primary care allied health professionals. Based on previous qualitative studies on the theme of screening for addictions in primary care [33,40], a graphic representation of the concepts that emerged is presented in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Conceptualizing caregivers’ practice and experience of screening for addictive disorders.

Fig 1

In essence, the type of exploration conducted here gathers subjective data. The same applies to their analysis. To ensure the validity of this study, the scientific criteria of the qualitative methods of the COREQ grid were respected (S2 Appendix).

Conclusions

This qualitative study underlines the inadequacy between the specialization of healthcare professionals, through increasingly technical job references, and the current willingness of public authorities, to encourage multidisciplinary care that mobilizes skills such as the patient-centric approach. The nature of the relationship between professionals and patients remains to be explored since an almost "friendly" relationship seems to favour disclosure, but also to induce inertia in care. This study complements the studies already conducted with addictologists and addict patients. These results will have to be compared with the opinions of general practitioners and patients received in primary care, for a more global model.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. Initial interview guide.

(DOCX)

pone.0315926.s001.docx (13.8KB, docx)
S2 Appendix. COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) checklist.

(DOCX)

pone.0315926.s002.docx (25.8KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank research and innovation department, Hospital of Tours. This article is supported by the French network of University Hospitals HUGO (‘Hôpitaux Universitaires du Grand Ouest’).

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Barrio P, Reynolds J, García-Altés A, Gual A, Anderson P. Social costs of illegal drugs, alcohol and tobacco in the European Union: A systematic review: Drug use in Europe and its costs to society. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2017;36: 578–588. doi: 10.1111/dar.12504 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhang C, Brook JS, Leukefeld CG, De La Rosa M, Brook DW. Compulsive buying and quality of life: An estimate of the monetary cost of compulsive buying among adults in early midlife. Psychiatry Res. 2017;252: 208–214. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.03.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Barlow P, Labonte R, McKee M, Stuckler D. WHO response to WTO member state challenges on tobacco, food and beverage policies. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97: 846–848. doi: 10.2471/BLT.19.231985 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Michot I. Julien Morel d’Arleux Coordination: Julie-Emilie Adès Maquette: Frédérique Million Documentation: 2019; 8. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Crime UO on D and. World drug report 2019. UN, Office on Drugs and Crime,; 2019. Available: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3830902
  • 6.Potenza MN. The neurobiology of pathological gambling and drug addiction: an overview and new findings. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2008;363: 3181–3189. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Arlington VA: American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. American Psychiatric Association. 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.De Maeyer J, Vanderplasschen W, Broekaert E. Quality of life among opiate-dependent individuals: A review of the literature. Int J Drug Policy. 2010;21: 364–380. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2010.01.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Laudet AB. The case for considering quality of life in addiction research and clinical practice. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2011;6: 44–55. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2495. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Baumeister SE, Gelberg L, Leake BD, Yacenda-Murphy J, Vahidi M, Andersen RM. Effect of a Primary Care based Brief Intervention Trial among Risky Drug Users on Health-related Quality of Life. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;0: 254–261. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.06.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Babor TF, McRee BG, Kassebaum PA, Grimaldi PL, Ahmed K, Bray J. Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): Toward a Public Health Approach to the Management of Substance Abuse. Subst Abuse. 2007;28: 7–30. doi: 10.1300/J465v28n03_03 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Babor TF, Del Boca F, Bray JW. Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment: implications of SAMHSA’s SBIRT initiative for substance abuse policy and practice: SAMHSA’s SBIRT initiative: implications for policy and practice. Addiction. 2017;112: 110–117. doi: 10.1111/add.13675 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Pautrat M, Pierre Lebeau J, Laporte C. Identifying available addictive disorder screening tests validated in primary care: A systematic review. Addict Behav. 2022;126: 107180. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.107180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yarnall KSH, Pollak KI, Østbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health. 2003;93: 635–641. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.4.635 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yoast RA, Wilford BB, Hayashi SW. Encouraging physicians to screen for and intervene in substance use disorders: Obstacles and strategies for change. J Addict Dis. 2008;27: 77–97. doi: 10.1080/10550880802122687 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Maurat F. Repérage précoce et intervention brève des mésusages d’alcool: étude de faisabilité auprès de 97 médecins généralistes girondins sur une année. Thèse d’exercice, Université Bordeaux-II. 2006.
  • 17.McPherson TL, Hersch RK. Brief substance use screening instruments for primary care settings: a review. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2000;18: 193–202. doi: 10.1016/s0740-5472(99)00028-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Neuner-Jehle S. [The addiction patient in the family physicians’ practice: tools and skills for a successful performance]. Ther Umsch Rev Ther. 2014;71: 585–591. doi: 10.1024/0040-5930/a000557 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Pautrat M, Riffault V, Ciolfi D, Breton H, Brunault P, Lebeau J-P. Screening of substance-related and addictive disorders according to outpatients narratives. exercer. 2019; 347–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.LOI n° 2019–774 du 24 juillet 2019 relative à l’organisation et à la transformation du système de santé (1). 2019–774 Jul 24, 2019.
  • 21.LOI n° 2016–41 du 26 janvier 2016 de modernisation de notre système de santé (1). 2016–41 Jan 26, 2016.
  • 22.Arrêté du 9 mars 2018 portant approbation de l’avenant 12 à la convention nationale du 4 mai 2012, organisant les rapports entres les pharmaciens titulaires d’officine et l’assurance maladie.
  • 23.Arrêté du 7 novembre 2019 relatif à l’exercice de l’activité d’assistant médical.
  • 24.Décret n° 2018–629 du 18 juillet 2018 relatif à l’exercice infirmier en pratique avancée. 2018–629 Jul 18, 2018.
  • 25.Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19: 349–357. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Djaoui E. Intervenir au domicile. 3e éd. Rennes: Presses de l’École des hautes études en santé publique; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Leduc F, Delcourt J-B. Aider, soigner, accompagner les personnes à domicile: Un éclairage sur l’intime. Gérontologie Société. 2007;30 / n° 122: 145. doi: 10.3917/gs.122.0145 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wamsley M, Satterfield JM, Curtis A, Lundgren L, Satre DD. Alcohol and Drug Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) Training and Implementation: Perspectives from 4 Health Professions. J Addict Med. 2018;12: 262–272. doi: 10.1097/ADM.0000000000000410 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.McCann TV, Savic M, Ferguson N, Bosley E, Smith K, Roberts L, et al. Paramedics’ perceptions of their scope of practice in caring for patients with non-medical emergency-related mental health and/or alcohol and other drug problems: A qualitative study. PloS One. 2018;13: e0208391. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Recommandation de bonne pratique. Démarches centrées sur le patient. Information, conseil, éducation thérapeutique, suivi. HAS.
  • 31.Agerwala SM, McCance-Katz EF. Integrating screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) into clinical practice settings: a brief review. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2012;44: 307–317. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2012.720169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Aldridge A, Linford R, Bray J. Substance use outcomes of patients served by a large US implementation of Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT): Outcomes of SAMHSA’s SBIRT program. Addiction. 2017;112: 43–53. doi: 10.1111/add.13651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Pautrat Maxime, Ciolfi David, Riffault Viencent, Breton Hervé, Brunault Paul, Lebeau Jean-Pierre. Repérage des troubles liés à une substance et troubles addictifs en soins premiers—Point de vue d’addictologues. Exercer. 2019; 340–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Recommandation de bonne pratique. Eléments pour élaborer une aide à la prise de décision partagée entre patient et professionnel de santé. HAS. 2018.
  • 35.Schrecker C, Toupet L. Dessiner les frontières de l’intime dans le cadre des soins. Socio. 2016; 45–81. doi: 10.4000/socio.2416 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Menecier P, Plattier S, Rotheval L, Lefranc D. [Day hospitalisation in addictology]. Soins Psychiatr. 2019;40: 41–44. doi: 10.1016/j.spsy.2019.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Levinson W, Stiles WB, Inui TS, Engle R. Physician frustration in communicating with patients. Med Care. 1993;31: 285–295. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199304000-00001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ruberton PM, Huynh HP, Miller TA, Kruse E, Chancellor J, Lyubomirsky S. The relationship between physician humility, physician-patient communication, and patient health. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99: 1138–1145. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Abric J-C. Psychologie de la communication: théories et méthodes. Malakoff: Dunod; 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Pautrat M, Renard C, Riffault V, Ciolfi D, Edeline A, Breton H, et al. Cross-analyzing addiction specialist and patient opinions and experiences about addictive disorder screening in primary care to identify interaction-related obstacles: a qualitative study. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2023;18: 12. doi: 10.1186/s13011-023-00522-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lebeau J. Inertie thérapeutique dans l’hypertension artérielle. Exercer.: 37–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.McNeely J, Kumar PC, Rieckmann T, Sedlander E, Farkas S, Chollak C, et al. Barriers and facilitators affecting the implementation of substance use screening in primary care clinics: a qualitative study of patients, providers, and staff. Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2018;13: 8. doi: 10.1186/s13722-018-0110-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gainey S, Muzzy W, Dooley M, Lauerer J, Pelic C, Rheingold AA, et al. Outcomes and lessons learned from an interprofessional student training program in Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) at an academic health sciences center. Nurse Educ Today. 2022;111: 105323. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105323 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Mohammad Sidiq

8 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-11025Cross-analysing the opinions and experiences of nurses, physiotherapists, dentists, midwives and pharmacists with respect to addictive disorder screening in primary care: a qualitative studyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. pautra,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Sidiq, PhD Pain Sciences Physiotherapy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section. 

4. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. 

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors kindly find my suggestions and Reviewer comments:

1. Elaborate a better reason for using grounded theory as the chosen qualitative approach and contemplate indicating how it excels against some other similar strategies.

2. Increase the number of specific ideas for an appropriate approach to training or policy change that may improve allied health worker involvement in addiction screening.

3. Use tabular form or an organizational chart to recapitulate the potential findings as well as the enablers and challenges related to the HCPC in various workers. This will help the readers understand the complexity of the students’ relationships that was detected in the study, at first glance.

4. The results can be compared with the international literature on the addiction screening so the study is more generalizable and can be applied for the other countries besides French healthcare context.

5. Consider several aspects of sample heterogeneity – geographic and professional – particularly in terms of the contrast between urban and rural practices for the improvement of your samples’ representativeness.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. I found it to be an interesting read and believe that there is not a lot of research done in this important area. However, I would suggest the following minor and major edits to improve the piece:

Data availability -

It is recommended that authors include selected verbatim interview quotations and focus group data underlying the findings.

Abstract -

This is well written and gives a nice overview of the paper!

Consider the following minor points for improvement:

1. Consider adding another 1-2 keywords.

2. The spelling of the word ´analysing´ is spelt differently in the full and short title. Authors should ensure this is spelt similarly throughout the paper.

3. Consider combining the background and objective section of the abstract. Consider adding the main aim(s) of the research.

4. Correct the spelling error of the word between in the methods section of the abstract:

“Methods: This qualitative study inspired by the grounded theory was carried out betwenn August 2018 and July 2019.”

Introduction -

Consider the following major and minor points for improvement:

The introduction is well written. However, I found it very short and lacking relevant information. There are also several grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors throughout which I would advise authors to correct as well as the rest of the paper.

5. Punctuation is missing throughout the introduction. In the first sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction, add a comma after the word mortality, and in the second sentence, add a comma after the word opioids. Second paragraph of the introduction, add a comma after the word inefficiency and after the word midwives in both sentence 3 and sentence 7. Correct the spelling of the word `midwifes´. The authors should check for further missing punctuation, spelling and grammar errors throughout the manuscript.

“The global burden of addiction disorders is based on their morbidity, mortality and social costs1,2. Alcohol, opioids and cannabis are the most prevalent, with a risk factor for premature death and disability3–5.”

“But many already known obstacles to addictive disorder screening in primary care remain, such as lack of time, a feeling of inefficiency and patient reluctance14–19.”

“Since 2016, dental surgeons, nurses, midwifes and physiotherapists have been called upon to carry out this screening21(p201).”

“Since 2016, dental surgeons, nurses, midwifes and physiotherapists have been called upon to carry out this screening21(p201).”

6. Authors could give examples or add to the sentence in the first paragraph of the introduction to make readers more familiar with the DSM-V criteria:

“The fifth edition of the DSM-V described the criteria for diagnosing dependence for both drug related disorders and non-drug-related behaviours7.”

7. Authors should extend/give a brief explanation to readers as to what the Screening Brief Intervention and Referral Treatment is upon first mentioning in the introduction.

8. The authors should consider adding to their main research questions after mentioning the aim of the study at the end of the introduction.

9. Authors should also consider adding why the study was developed, why it is important, and what benefits will it have/add to research.

Methods -

Consider the following major and minor points for improvement:

10. Punctuation missing in the participant’s section.

11. Authors should include how the participants were recruited and via what means?

12. Authors should make the inclusion criteria clearer in the participant's section as well as add how many participants were included in the study.

13. What is the icebreaker question mentioned in the data collection section? Authors should add this and/or include examples.

14. Consider adding additional sections here to further explain the methods (it may be useful to add a semi-structured interview section, as well as a focus group section and explain what they are, how they were used in the study, etc.).

15. Authors should add a sentence or two to explain to readers what the grounded theorization approach mentioned is in the analysis section.

16. Authors should check for any grammatical errors, spelling, and punctuation throughout the methods section.

Results -

Consider the following major and minor points for improvement:

17. Authors switch between fully written out numbers and numerals. Check consistency throughout the paper.

18. The authors should consider including a table of the themes and subthemes to the results section to make these clearer for the reader.

19. Consider renaming some of the theme and subtheme headings to be more technically sound/scientific and less vague

20. Authors could make it clearer as to what information in the results section is from the semi-structured interviews and what is from the focus groups.

21. The authors should connect each theme back to the research questions and in the discussion.

22. Subtheme titled `The “bonus” of each profession`- authors should distinguish between using double and single quotation marks when directly quoting participant interviews and headings. Consider using single quotations in this title and in text (i.e., The ´bonus´ of each profession). Check for consistency throughout paper.

23. Consider adding to the Debriefing theme. This appears very short compared to the others.

24. Authors should check for any grammatical errors, spelling, and punctuation throughout the results section.

Discussion -

Consider the following major and minor points for improvement:

25. It is recommended that authors provide more information when linking their findings back to past research. Authors should consider doing this throughout the discussion section.

26. Authors should distinguish between using double and single quotation marks when directly quoting participant interviews and headings.

27. Authors should avoid directly quoting participants in their discussion section – this is for the results section. It is recommended that the discussion should be used merely to discuss the findings and link back to past studies.

28. Authors should check for any grammatical errors, spelling, and punctuation throughout the discussion section.

29. Authors should consider re-writing and keeping the strengths and weaknesses section short with a specific focus on the strengths, limitations, and future directions of the study (1-2 paragraphs). Authors include a lot of information that should be in the methods section of the paper. The authors should consider moving relevant method information earlier (i.e., how focus groups were arranged, took place, etc.), and remove repetition and other irrelevant information.

30. Figure 1 is blurry.

Conclusion -

Conclusion is to the point and easy to read!

Consider the following minor point for improvement:

31. The first sentence of the conclusion is identical to the first sentence of the discussion. Authors should consider re-writing to avoid repetition.

Reviewer #2: The complexity of primary care paramedics' viewpoints on addiction screening is aptly captured by the qualitative approach.

Additional comments: Give a more thorough explanation of how the recruiting process might affect the results and make recommendations for how to deal with this in subsequent studies.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE - Reviewer feedback.docx

pone.0315926.s003.docx (23KB, docx)
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 24;20(1):e0315926. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0315926.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


28 Nov 2024

Response to editor and reviewers

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors kindly find my suggestions and Reviewer comments:

1. Elaborate a better reason for using grounded theory as the chosen qualitative approach and contemplate indicating how it excels against some other similar strategies.

Response = We added this main reason in the discussion section : “The choice of grounded theory analysis was justified by the search for the conceptualisation of tracking by primary care allied health professionals”.

2. Increase the number of specific ideas for an appropriate approach to training or policy change that may improve allied health worker involvement in addiction screening.

Response = We have expanded the bullet points so that readers can easily find the key messages for their future practice.

3. Use tabular form or an organizational chart to recapitulate the potential findings as well as the enablers and challenges related to the HCPC in various workers. This will help the readers understand the complexity of the students’ relationships that was detected in the study, at first glance.

Response = We are sorry, but we're not sure we understand what you're waiting for.

4. The results can be compared with the international literature on the addiction screening so the study is more generalizable and can be applied for the other countries besides French healthcare context.

Response = You're right, and that's how we present our results in a global model based on data found in the literature, with no specific French healthcare system.

5. Consider several aspects of sample heterogeneity – geographic and professional – particularly in terms of the contrast between urban and rural practices for the improvement of your samples’ representativeness.

Response = Our sample reflects the diversity of professions and types of practice most common among paramedics, as show tables 1 and 2.

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. I found it to be an interesting read and believe that there is not a lot of research done in this important area. However, I would suggest the following minor and major edits to improve the piece:

Data availability -

It is recommended that authors include selected verbatim interview quotations and focus group data underlying the findings.

Response = Thank you for your recommendation. From our perspective, the selected verbatim quotations included in results section illustrate and support our findings. We have carefully chosen these excerpts to highlight the most relevant and representative aspects of the participants' perspectives. Adding more quotations might risk diluting the key messages or overloading the reader with redundant information.

Abstract -

This is well written and gives a nice overview of the paper!

Consider the following minor points for improvement:

1. Consider adding another 1-2 keywords.

Response = We added this three: addictive disorders, cross-analyzing, early detection

2. The spelling of the word ´analysing´ is spelt differently in the full and short title. Authors should ensure this is spelt similarly throughout the paper.

Response = Thank you, we preferred analyzing and we changed it.

3. Consider combining the background and objective section of the abstract. Consider adding the main aim(s) of the research.

Response = We have combined the background and objective sections.

4. Correct the spelling error of the word between in the methods section of the abstract:

“Methods: This qualitative study inspired by the grounded theory was carried out betwenn August 2018 and July 2019.”

Response = Thank you, this has been changed.

Introduction -

Consider the following major and minor points for improvement:

The introduction is well written. However, I found it very short and lacking relevant information. There are also several grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors throughout which I would advise authors to correct as well as the rest of the paper.

5. Punctuation is missing throughout the introduction. In the first sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction, add a comma after the word mortality, and in the second sentence, add a comma after the word opioids. Second paragraph of the introduction, add a comma after the word inefficiency and after the word midwives in both sentence 3 and sentence 7. Correct the spelling of the word `midwifes´. The authors should check for further missing punctuation, spelling and grammar errors throughout the manuscript.

“The global burden of addiction disorders is based on their morbidity, mortality and social costs1,2. Alcohol, opioids and cannabis are the most prevalent, with a risk factor for premature death and disability3–5.”

“But many already known obstacles to addictive disorder screening in primary care remain, such as lack of time, a feeling of inefficiency and patient reluctance14–19.”

“Since 2016, dental surgeons, nurses, midwifes and physiotherapists have been called upon to carry out this screening21(p201).”

“Since 2016, dental surgeons, nurses, midwifes and physiotherapists have been called upon to carry out this screening21(p201).”

Response = Thank you, we checked and did the corrections.

6. Authors could give examples or add to the sentence in the first paragraph of the introduction to make readers more familiar with the DSM-V criteria:

“The fifth edition of the DSM-V described the criteria for diagnosing dependence for both drug related disorders and non-drug-related behaviours7.”

Response = You’re right, it could be clearer. We added this:

“These criteria comes together four : loss of control, physical dependence, social problems, and risky consumption”.

7. Authors should extend/give a brief explanation to readers as to what the Screening Brief Intervention and Referral Treatment is upon first mentioning in the introduction.

Response = We clarified the SBIRT concept, in introduction section: “SBIRT is a prevention tool for professionals, to identify risky substance use among the patients, with a view to reducing it”.

8. The authors should consider adding to their main research questions after mentioning the aim of the study at the end of the introduction.

Response = Thank you for your comment on this. This has been added at the end of the introduction section.

9. Authors should also consider adding why the study was developed, why it is important, and what benefits will it have/add to research.

Response = We added this sentence. We hope that these changes will highlight the novel contribution that this study offers: “Understanding what healthcare professionals think about the screening of addictive disorders in their day-to-day practice could help to identify some unknown barriers in their appropriation of the SBIRT protocol. As a first step, it would be useful to explore their ability to screen their patients and, possibly, develop a relevant intervention to encourage them to discuss addiction with their patients and improve early screening”.

Methods -

Consider the following major and minor points for improvement:

10. Punctuation missing in the participant’s section.

Response = We apologize for the oversight. The necessary punctuation has been added in the participants' section.

11. Authors should include how the participants were recruited and via what means?

12. Authors should make the inclusion criteria clearer in the participant's section as well as add how many participants were included in the study.

13. What is the icebreaker question mentioned in the data collection section? Authors should add this and/or include examples.

14. Consider adding additional sections here to further explain the methods (it may be useful to add a semi-structured interview section, as well as a focus group section and explain what they are, how they were used in the study, etc.).

15. Authors should add a sentence or two to explain to readers what the grounded theorization approach mentioned is in the analysis section.

Response = Thank you for your suggestions in remarks from 11 to 15. We have taken the liberty of addressing them together. Indeed, we have completely revised the participants and data collection sections of the method section. Upon reflection, we agree that we have not put enough emphasis on the method of this study. We propose the following rewrite :

METHODS

This qualitative study recruited healthcare professionals between August 2018 and July 2019. Using a grounded theory approach, enabled investigators to build a model of healthcare professional’s perspectives on addictive disorder screening in primary care.

Participants

Healthcare professionals included were physiotherapists, nurses, midwives, pharmacists, and dentists. They were recruited from primary care practices in the Centre Val de Loire, Normandy, and Ile-de France Regions, France. The first professionals have been contacted by phone from the author’s caregiver networks, then others were recruited using a snowball technique.

We conducted 13 individual semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals by telephone or at the place of their practice. There were seven women and six men aged between 26 and 60. We also conducted multidisciplinary interviews via focus groups including midwives, nurses and physiotherapists. There were nineteen women and six men aged between 25 and 57. Great variability in terms of sex, age, method and practice characteristics was sought for each professional.

All participants were informed about the study and its objectives and provided informed consent. Only 4 midwives refused to participate, because they did not feel concerned by substance use disorders in their practice.

Data collection

Focus groups have the advantage of encouraging interaction between participants and stimulating inter- and intra-disciplinary exchanges. This method exposes studies to the usual opinion leader and social desirability biases. To limit this desirability bias, along with any external biases, we conducted the focus group in a convivial atmosphere, around a lunch. Individual interviews have the advantage of guaranteeing intimacy, spontaneity and freedom of response during exchanges on a subject charged with representations such as addiction.

The initial guild interview was developed by all the authors and tested on two volunteer caregivers. It included an icebreaker question, which was “Tell me the story of the last patient with an addiction problem you saw ?”, an invitation to share experiences of successful and unsuccessful patient screening and their role in the identification process. New reminders were added to explore the concepts emerging from the initial analyses. All interviews and focus group were audio recorded and transcribed. All verbatim was coded to anonymize participant identity using ph,E1 for pharmacists's interview for example, or FG1 for the first focus group. A personal logbook collected field notes during the research. At the end of this research, all participants were invited to the presentation of verbatims and results, and some of them came.

16. Authors should check for any grammatical errors, spelling, and punctuation throughout the methods section.

Response = Sorry for that, we did corrections.

Results -

Consider the following major and minor points for improvement:

17. Authors switch between fully written out numbers and numerals. Check consistency throughout the paper.

Response = Sorry for that, we did corrections.

18. The authors should consider including a table of the themes and subthemes to the results section to make these clearer for the reader.

Response = Thank you for the suggestion. However, since our analysis is based on Grounded Theory Analysis (GTA), listing themes in a table format is not as straightforward as with generalized inductive analysis. In GTA, themes emerge organically from the data, making hard categorization.

If needed, we are more than happy to provide you a screenshot from our analysis software to show how the themes were derived.

19. Consider renaming some of the theme and subtheme headings to be more technically sound/scientific and less vague

Response = We intentionally chose easy-to-read, memorable headings to enhance reader engagement and practical application.

20. Authors could make it clearer as to what information in the results section is from the semi-structured interviews and what is from the focus groups.

Response = You’re right, it could be not clear although each quotes were cited with notification code FG (Focus Group) or I (interview). To explain more clearly, we added this explanation in the method section : “All verbatim was coded to anonymize participant identity using ph,E1 for pharmacists's interview for example, or FG1 for the first focus group”.

21. The authors should connect each theme back to the research questions and in the discussion.

Response = You're right, the length of a qualitative study can lose the reader among all the verbatim. Figure 1 illustrates the link between the quotes from the results section and the concept from the discussion section. For example: the concept ‘self-censorship’ is recalled by the in vivo words ‘ lack of solution’.

22. Subtheme titled `The “bonus” of each profession`- authors should distinguish between using double and single quotation marks when directly quoting participant interviews and headings. Consider using single quotations in this title and in text (i.e., The ´bonus´ of each profession). Check for consistency throughout paper.

Response = This has been changed.

23. Consider adding to the Debriefing theme. This appears very short compared to the others.

Response =Thank you for your comment. The debriefing theme is indeed shorter as it reflects a less prominent theme in the data compared to other themes. This has been added into section: Insufficient screening for addictions in primary care is reflected in the fact that participants had less to say about debriefing.

24. Authors should check for any grammatical errors, spelling, and punctuation throughout the results section.

Response = Thank you for pointing that out. We have made the necessary corrections.

Discussion -

Consider the following major and minor points for improvement:

25. It is recommended that authors provide more information when linking their findings back to past research. Authors should consider doing this throughout the discussion section.

Response = We are embarrassed if our results do not appear to be sufficiently related to the literature. An effort has been made, however, as in this paragraph in the discussion section where we link the concept of ‘self-censorship’ by paramedics to the same concept already described by addictologists in ref 33.

26. Authors should distinguish between using double and single quotation marks when directly quoting participant interviews and headings.

Response = This has been changed.

27. Authors should avoid directly quoting participants in their discussion section – this is for the results section. It is recommended that the discussion should be used merely to discuss the findings and link back to past studies.

Response = Those quoting has been removed.

28. Authors should check for any grammatical errors, spelling, and punctuation throughout the discussion section.

Response = Sorry for that, we did corrections.

29. Authors should consider re-writing and keeping the strengths and weaknesses section short with a specific focus on the strengths, limitations, and future directions of the study (1-2 paragraphs). Authors include a lot of information that should be in the methods section of the paper. The authors should consider moving relevant method information earlier (i.e., how focus groups were arranged, took place, etc.), and remove repetition and other irrelevant information.

Response = Thank you for your valuable comment. The Strengths and Limitations section has been shorten.

30. Figure 1 is blurry.

Response = The resolution of the figure has been revised.

Conclusion -

Conclusion is to the point and easy to read!

Consider the following minor point for improvement:

31. The first sentence of the conclusion is identical to the first

Decision Letter 1

Mohammad Sidiq

4 Dec 2024

Cross-analyzing the opinions and experiences of nurses, physiotherapists, dentists, midwives, and pharmacists with respect to addictive disorder screening in primary care: a qualitative study

PONE-D-24-11025R1

Dear Dr. Pautrat

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mohammad Sidiq, PhD Pain Sciences Physiotherapy

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Authors have addressed the issues raised by reviewers, and I am satisfied with the revision, and the manuscript can be accepted for publication. Congratulations to the authors.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Mohammad Sidiq

14 Jan 2025

PONE-D-24-11025R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pautrat,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Mohammad Sidiq

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix. Initial interview guide.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0315926.s001.docx (13.8KB, docx)
    S2 Appendix. COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) checklist.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0315926.s002.docx (25.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS ONE - Reviewer feedback.docx

    pone.0315926.s003.docx (23KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES