Skip to main content
NCBI home page
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Mar 1;18(3):e0281882. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281882

Proposal for a shared definition of « primary healthcare » by health professionals: A national cross-sectional survey

Michel Prade 1,*, Anne Rousseau 2,3,4, Olivier Saint-Lary 1,5, Sophie Baumann 2, Louise Devillers 1,5, Arnaud Courtin 1, Sylvain Gautier 5,6,7
Editor: Miwako Hosoda8
PMCID: PMC9977035  PMID: 36857398

Abstract

Introduction

Forty years passed between the two most important definitions of primary health care from Alma Alta Conference in 1978 to WHO’s definition in 2018. Since then, reforms of healthcare systems, changes in ambulatory sector and COVID 19, have created a need for reinterpretations and redefinition of primary healthcare. The primary objective of the study was to precise the definitions and the representations of primary healthcare by healthcare professionals.

Methods

We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional study using a web-based anonymized questionnaire including opened-ended and closed-ended questions but also “real-life” case-vignettes to assess participant’s perception of primary healthcare, from September to December 2020. Five case-vignette, describing situations involving a specific primary health care professional in a particular place for a determined task were selected, before the study, by test/retest method.

Results

A total of 585 healthcare practitioners were included in the study, 29% were general practitioners and 32% were midwives. Amongst proposed healthcare professions, general practitioners (97.6%), nurses (85.3%), midwives (85.2%) and pharmacists (79.3%) were those most associated with primary healthcare. The functions most associated with primary healthcare, with over 90% of approval were “prevention, screening”, “education to good health”, “orientation in health system”. Two case-vignettes strongly emerged as describing a situation of primary healthcare: Midwife/Hospital/Pregnancy (74%) and Pharmacist/Pharmacy/Flu shot (90%). The profession and the modality of practice of the responders lead to diverging answers regarding their primary healthcare representations.

Conclusions

Primary healthcare is an ever-evolving part of the healthcare system, as is its definition. This study explored the perception of primary healthcare by French healthcare practitioners in two complementary ways: oriented way for the important functions and more practical way with the case-vignettes. Understanding their differences of representation, according to their profession and practice offered the authors a first step to a shared and operational version of the primary healthcare definition.

Introduction

The concept of "primary health care" (PHC) was first defined in 1978 at the Alma-Ata conference as "essential health care, economically and socially sustainable" [1]. A more recent definition was proposed, forty years later during the Astana conference in 2018: « PHC is a whole-of-society approach to health that aims equitably to maximize the level and distribution of health and well-being by focusing on people’s needs and preferences (both as individuals and communities) as early as possible along the continuum from health promotion and disease prevention to treatment, rehabilitation and palliative care, and as close as feasible to people’s everyday environment » [2].

In the 40 years between these two definitions, the concept of PHC has been reinterpreted and redefined many times, producing confusion in both terminology and practice. Barbara Starfield, at the end of the 1990s, proposed a definition of PHC centered on the activity of the general practitioner (GP) and introduced 4 essential functions: “first contact”, “longitudinality (person-focused care over time)”, “comprehensiveness”, “coordination”. Starfield has also demonstrated that health systems based on PHC are more efficient and less costly [3, 4]. Based on these publications, in most OECD countries [5], the concept of PHC has been integrated to refer to the first segment of the health system. Ambulatory medicine, its structures, and actors, have thus been able to identify with this concept of PHC. In France, the health system is historically divided between a hospital sector, largely dominated by public institutions, and an ambulatory sector in which private practice, partly financed by public funding, predominates. The concept of PHC has been used to describe this ambulatory care sector and its professionals [6]. Gradually, the concept has become accepted by health care actors until it has been incorporated into the law [7].

However, over the last twenty years, the sustained reforms of the French health system and of the ambulatory sector in particular, have strongly reexamined the outlines of PHC [8, 9]. These reforms have upset the representations of some and others and modified professional positions. They have redistributed the roles of many professionals. Advanced practice nurses are a significant example, during these successive reforms they gained more autonomy in their practice and are becoming a significant part of PHC [10, 11]. Pharmacists are another profession concerned by these redistributions of roles. In France, they are now able to vaccinate against the flu and were able to vaccinate during the COVID-19 pandemic [12]. Other professionals could perceive a shift in what they were expected to do. In France, general practitioners are strongly associated with the gatekeeping of the primary healthcare sector [13]. Recent reforms have emphasized this prerogative, the general practitioner having a central role in coordination of patient healthcare and orientation in the health system. Those changes institute a blur in the nature and prerogatives of PHC professionals and raise questions about a revision of the definition of primary healthcare.

On a territorial scale, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has only accentuated these questions, at a time when new large-scale reforms are expected. Some people see the reforms on the hospital sector and the emergence of "local hospitals" as an opportunity to reconsider the roles and functions of the various actors on a territorial scale. This situation is common in many countries in which epidemiological and health transitions lead to a rethinking of the organization and structuring of the health system in order to meet the challenges of aging, chronic diseases, increased mobility, and emerging diseases [14]. To better communicate and organize the health system on a territorial level, it is significant for the professionals to understand that they belong to a sector of this system. This is especially needed in a moving, subject to reforms system. It is important to comprehend the other professional’s prerogatives and abilities to develop teamwork and interprofessional collaboration [15]. Interprofessional collaboration is essential to provide efficient and quality patient care [16, 17]. In order to develop the collaboration between health care actors, they have to “speak the same language” [18].

The apparent changes in the outlines of PHC and their translation into a given health system now invites us to question the perception of this concept by health professionals. To clarify the definitions and representations of PHC seems essential to better allocate human and financial resources that will be deployed in future reforms of the health system. The primary objective of our study was to precise the definitions and the representations of primary healthcare by healthcare professionals. The secondary objective was to identify the determinants associated with the different representations.

Material and methods

Study design

This study is a descriptive cross-sectional study using a web-based anonymized questionnaire. We used closed-end questions, opened ended questions and vignettes-based questionnaire to assess the participant’s perception of primary healthcare. The study took place from 09/27/2020 to 12/02/2020.

Participants

The respondents included in the study were French healthcare workers still in practice who responded to the full survey. The respondents were excluded from the study if they didn’t finish the survey, if they already answered the survey once, if they weren’t healthcare workers or if they weren’t still practicing. We tried to reach as many professionals as possible to be able to study the most diverse population in term of profession, activity modalities and university involvement. In pursuit of that goal we chose to broadcast the survey to a selection of mailing lists known for their high response rate. We also recruited responders in social media, used publicly accessible email addresses of different professionals in all of France. The diffusion strategy also relied on the snowball effect, as the respondents were encouraged to distribute the questionnaire to their contact list.

Respondents’ informed consent was sought through an email invitation which contained the survey link, an explanation of the study’s purpose and its identity protection measures. Consenting invitees could immediately participate. The study was open for data collection for eleven weeks, during which gentle reminder emails were sent to non-responders.

Survey instrument

The study used the opensource software Limesurvey to build, host and broadcast the survey. We build the survey using the “Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys” (CHERRIES) guidelines. The survey consisted of three components, for an estimated completion time of less than ten minutes. To avoid multiple completion, each participant was asked if he had already completed the survey once. If the answer was positive, the survey stopped automatically, and the answer was discarded. It was impossible to go back when completing the survey.

The first component was meant to describe the population’s characteristics. We asked for: Age, Gender, Profession, Modalities of their practice (liberal, city or hospital…), Degree of involvement in university (rated from 1 = No involvement to 4 = Frequent involvement in university)

The second component of the questionnaire consisted of an opened ended question and multiple-choice questions to retrieve the participant’s naive definition of primary healthcare. Firstly, respondents were asked by an open-ended question to suggest three key words describing what PHC meant to them. Secondly, in multiple choice questions, respondents had to choose amongst a list of functions, healthcare workers and places linked to PHC in literature [3, 6], those who they thought could be a part of their definition of PHC.

The third component of the survey consisted of 5 standardized clinical case-vignette placing the respondents in “real life” situation. Vignette studies has been used by many authors in medical literature [19, 20]. We used this specific method to capture the respondent’s judgement or inclination to categorize a situation towards primary healthcare. Each of the selected clinical scenarios staged a different place, healthcare professional and function of care. We selected the five case-vignettes after a test/retest of the vignette method, taking place for 3 months, before the study started. The test/retest consisted of a survey composed of 15 vignettes, submitted to 50 healthcare professionals. They were asked for each vignette if the situation could be considered as a situation of primary healthcare or not. Three months later, we asked them to respond to the exact same survey. The test/retest showed there was no significant divergence between the two surveys after a 3 months interval. For each case-vignette, the Kappa score was between 0.62 and 0.92, displaying a strong agreement. We concluded that there was a good chance we could capture the respondent’s clear opinion with a case-vignette method. Amongst the 15 vignettes tested, we chose the 5 final case-vignettes on the basis of their Kappa score, which would be the highest possible and the variety of the situations pictured in each case.

Statistical analysis

Characteristics of participants were described with frequencies and percentages for qualitative variable.

Regarding opened ended question, two of the co-authors (AR and MP) conducted the content analysis of the open-ended questions. They classified responses by themes in 14 categories and resolved any disagreement in consultation with a third author (SG). Responses categories were then described by their frequencies and percentages.

We performed descriptive analysis on the Multiple-Choice Questions aimed to clarify the definition of primary healthcare by the respondents. For each clinical case-vignettes, we did a descriptive analysis and statistical tests on every explicative variable. Dependent variables were case-vignettes considered as primary healthcare and explicative variables were the age, the sex, the profession and the degree of university involvement. Qualitative variables were analyzed with the Chi-square test or Fisher’s test, as appropriate. All statistical tests were two-sided, and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analysis was conducted with R version 4.0.

Ethics approval

There were no ethical issues raised upon the realization of the study. We consulted the ethics comity of the national organization of teaching general practitioner (IRB number 00010804). Anonymity was guaranteed in the study. No personal data was collected. We registered the study to the “CNIL” (National comity of computer science and liberties), a French independent administration in charge of informatic data protection (Registering number 2217819). Participant’s consent was obtained at the start of the survey, consent could be waived at any moment during the study.

Results

Characteristics

A total of 585 participants were included in the study (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Flow chart.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Participant’s characteristics are displayed in Table 1. Most of the participants were women (75.7%), most represented professions were General Practitioners (29.1%) and midwifes (32.5%). About half of the participants were working in hospitals, and about half of the participants were involved in university work.

Table 1. Characteristics of population.

Characteristics N = 585
n (%)
mean [minimum; maximum]
Women 443 (75.7)
Men 142 (24.3)
Age 40.6 [21; 80]
Midwife 189 (32.5)
General practitioner 167 (29.1)
Other practitioner 31 (5.3)
Nurse 89 (15.3)
Physiotherapist 6 (1.0)
Pharmacist 65 (11.2)
Student 11 (1.9)
Dentist 5 (0.9)
Other paramedical 16 (2.8)
Liberal practice 279 (47.7)
Hospital practice 306 (52.3)
None or few involvements in university work 308 (52.6)
Involved in university work 277 (47.4)
Open in a new tab

Naïve perception of primary healthcare

The study gathered 1401 key words from the open-ended question, then distributed in 14 categories (Table 2). The most represented categories when asked about PHC were “prevention, screening, education to a good health” (44.3%), “Accessibility and proximity” (33.8%) and “first resort, gatekeeping” (26.2%).

Table 2. Classification of key words from open–ended question.

Category Number of key words classified in the category %
Prevention, screening, education to good health 259 44.3
Accessibility, proximity 198 33.8
First resort, gatekeeping 153 26.2
Diagnostic, treatment, follow up 129 22.1
Orientation in system of care 109 18.6
Global patient care 103 17.6
Quality of the healthcare professional 87 14.9
Essential care 87 14.9
Public health 53 9.1
General practitioner 50 8.5
Unscheduled care, emergency 50 8.5
Ambulatory, liberal 44 7.5
Universal 43 7.4
Life and death 36 6.2
Open in a new tab

Key words gathered from the open–ended question: “What does primary healthcare mean to you?” classified in 14 categories

Professionals and places associated with primary healthcare

Amongst proposed healthcare professions, GP (97.6%), nurse (85.3%), Midwife (85.2%) and pharmacist (79.3%) were those most associated with primary healthcare. At the opposite, radiologist (18.8%), cardiologist (21.7%), paramedic (21.9%) and psychiatrist (27.5%) were the professions least associated with primary healthcare (Fig 2). When asked if their profession was associated with primary healthcare, 100% of GPs answered yes, 98.9% of nurses and 98.9% of midwives. Amongst proposed places of healthcare, General practitioner’s office (94.2%), multi-professional medical practice (93.5%), Maternal and child protection office (85.5%), Mental health medical center (63.1%) were those most associated with primary healthcare.

Fig 2. Professionals and places associated with primary healthcare.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

Adherence to the functions of primary healthcare cited in literature and French law

More than 50% of the respondents mostly agrees or totally agrees with the functions cited in literature and French law as prerogatives of primary healthcare (Fig 3). The functions most associated with primary healthcare, with over 90% of approval are “prevention, screening”, “education to good health”, “orientation in health system”.

Fig 3. Functions associated with primary healthcare.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

Case vignettes

The 5 case-vignettes implemented in the survey are displayed in Table 3. Most participants thought that the first two vignettes described situation of primary healthcare: Midwife/Hospital/Pregnancy (74%) and Pharmacist/Pharmacy/Flu shot (90%) (Table 4).

Table 3. The five case–vignettes.

Case-vignette Professional Place Function
Mrs C, 25 years old, is consulting a midwife, in a teaching hospital, for her 6th month pregnancy checkup. Midwife Hospital Pregnancy
Mrs D, 70 years old, has an appointment with her pharmacist, in her neighborhood pharmacy to get her flu shot. Pharmacist Pharmacy Flu shot
Mr V, 55 years old, is consulting his usual cardiologist in his practice, to realize an EKG regarding the annual checkup of his high blood pressure. Cardiologist Practice EKG
Mr D, 50 years old is consulting the occupational physician in the premises of his company to discuss coming back to work after a tibial fracture during his last ski vacation. O. Physician Company Fracture
Mrs P, 34 years old is cared for by an emergency nurse, working in the emergency department of a small hospital. She has important abdominal pain since this morning. Nurse Emergency Room Abdominal pain
Open in a new tab

Table 4. Case–vignette analysis.

  Midwife Hospital Pregnancy Pharmacist Pharmacy Flu shot Cardiologist Practice EKG O.physician Company fracture Nurse Emergency Dpt Abdominal pain
 Yes (%) N = 434 (74.2%) P N = 587 (90.1%) p N = 275 (47.0%) p N = 293 (50.1%) P N = 287 (49%) P
Age 0.94 0.002 0.902 0.557   0.312
<38 years 73.8 94 42.3 51 51.3
>38 years 73.2 86.1 41.4 48.2 46.8
Gender < 0.001 0.892 0.208 <0.01 0.097
Men 62.7 89.4 37.3 40.1 55.6
Women 77.2 90.3 43.8 53.3 47.2
Profession < 0.01 0.441 <0.001 <0.01   <0.01
Midwife 89.4 91.5 39.2 56.1 40.2
General practitioner 64.5 89.3 35.5 40.2 53.8
Nurse 71.9 85.4 64 58.4 46.1
Pharmacist 61.5 89.9 38.5 56.9 61.5
Other profession 65.2 93.8 40.6 37.7 56.5
Modalities of practice <0.01 0.94 0.103 <0.01 0.191
Liberal (solo) 65.8 88.8 41.4 40.1 48.7
Liberal (pluriprofessional) 63.8 90.6 33.9 46.5 44.9
Clinic or hospital 81.8 90.9 49.1 50 58.2
Other type of practice 81.6 90.3 44.4 60.2 47.4
University involvement 0.03 0.722 <0.001 0.139 0.283
1 = None 71.3 89.3 47.5 51.6 56.6
2 = Few 78 90.3 46.8 52.2 47.3
3 = Regular 77 88.8 44.4 52.8 48.9
4 = Very frequently 62.6 92.9 23.2 39.4 44.4
Open in a new tab

Regarding potential determinants, the profession of the responders was a variable associated with a divergence of perception in four vignettes: Midwife/Hospital/Pregnancy (p<0.01), Cardiologist/Practice/EKG (p<0.001), Occupational Physician/Company/Fracture (p<0.01), Nurse/Emergency Room/Abdominal pain (p<0.01). The modalities of practice of the responders were explored using a variable associated with a divergence of perception in two vignettes: Midwife/Hospital/Pregnancy (p<0.01) Occupational Physician/Company/Fracture (p<0.001). The university involvement of the responders was a variable associated with a divergence of perception in two vignettes: Midwife/Hospital/Pregnancy (p = 0.03) Cardiologist/Practice/EKG (p<0.001) (Table 4).

Discussion

Principal findings of the study

The study highlighted places, professionals and functions strongly associated with the perception of primary healthcare by the respondents. Together, they formed a shared definition of primary healthcare based on the missions of prevention, education to a good health, follow up of patient’s health and gate keeping.

The case-vignette study demonstrated variations in the perception of what is primary healthcare in French context, according to healthcare professionals. Those divergence were depending on the characteristics of the healthcare professionals we questioned.

Strengths and limitations

The study was based on a validated methodology, especially the case-vignette part, a method extensively studied in literature and used to collect the respondent’s perception [9, 10]. To strengthen the methodology, selected case-vignette endured a session of back test three months prior to the study. The results we obtained were consistent with data gathered from the literature. Core concepts of primary healthcare came out with strength in the study, giving that much value to the rest of the observations.

However, our survey presents some bias. Due to the method of diffusion of the questionnaire, the study was exposed to a selection bias. The highlighted divergence in the respondent’s definition and perception of primary healthcare could have been minored by this bias. As a questionnaire based study, the respondents could have been influenced by a social desirability bias. Using case-vignette, we tried to minor the impact of steered responses obtained from a questionnaire based study. The concept of primary healthcare is relatively new to healthcare professionals and to avoid a declarative bias, it was impossible to go back when the questionnaire started.

Foundations of the primary healthcare definition

Primary healthcare is an ever-evolving part of the healthcare system. From the ideal of social justice described at Alma Ata in 1978, the reaffirmed importance of PHC in a changing world at Astana in 2018, to the necessary, large scale reorganization of healthcare systems due to covid 19, primary healthcare has shown a great capability of adaptation [1, 21]. This adaptability is possible thanks to solid foundations, which form the basis of a definition of PHC.

The idea of social justice was at the core of the PHC definition in the Alma-Ata conference. Our study illustrated this bond with accessibility and proximity being strongly attached to PHC. Prevention, screening, education to a good health and orientation in healthcare system are cited as a major part of the definition. These functions were key points of interest in the Alma Ata conference, and B. Starfield publications [1, 4]. They were reaffirmed in French law and Astana in 2018 and should remain at the center of future evolutions of healthcare policy [9, 21]. These powerful concepts carried by healthcare workers and their places of care form the foundations of PHC.

A shared definition of primary healthcare

Having a shared definition of PHC could lead to a better collaboration, coordination and communication between the different actors of the health system. PHC in particular involves many actors, caregivers or administrative and organizational staff. To better work together, they have to understand each other’s roles and functions. This improved collaboration in PHC has to be based on a common ground, a shared definition where the field of PHC and every actor’s prerogatives are clearly stated. A shared definition of PHC could be a path to promote interprofessional communication and collaboration. In a 2015 publication by Supper et.al, it is said “In the early stages of collaboration, time should be dedicated to communication, training, building shared views and overcoming prejudices, to save time later on” and “The main barriers were the challenges of definition and awareness of one another’s roles and competences.” [22]. With an improved collaboration between professionals, studies has shown a positive impact on patient’s health [23, 24]. We think a better understanding of the prerogatives of the healthcare workers composing PHC and the boundaries of said system can lead to a better allocation of human and financial resources. On the contrary, a poor understanding of what is PHC could lead to an overlap of functions between different professionals, causing misunderstanding.

While specifying the outlines of PHC and trying to better collaboration between their actors, having a shared definition of PHC can bring challenges. One of them would be to crystallize the partition between primary and secondary care. In our study, the respondents described PHC in opposition to the hospital centered side of the healthcare system. This is found in Bismarckian rooted social protection systems where primary healthcare builds itself in opposition to public health institutions [25, 26]. With a clearly stated definition, those distinctions could lead to a compartmentalization of the healthcare system, giving strength to the identity of PHC and secondary healthcare but making communication between both of the entities less efficient [27]. The relationship between general practitioner and hospital-based specialists can be used to illustrate the compartmentalization between PHC and a hospital centered secondary healthcare. Sometimes described as opposites of each other, they are nevertheless responsible for the continuity of the patient’s care [25]. GPs and medical specialists are two parts of the healthcare system in constant communication around the patient, in an attempt to provide the most effective care possible [27, 28]. The two parts not being from the same healthcare sector, and their priorities being different, the expectations in term of communication may vary, causing friction between the actors, further indicating the opposition between them [28, 29].

Conclusion

Pieces of an operational definition of PHC has emerged from this study. Concepts strongly associated with PHC were highlighted and the perception of PHC by his effectors, healthcare professionals helped to understand recent changes. A shared definition of PHC can foster interprofessional collaboration and communication between professionals. On a territorial scale, it could help for a better allocation of the resources available. A shared definition also poses challenges. Primary care and its prerogatives being strengthened, the risk is to reinforce the partition between primary and secondary care.

To further understand and enrich the proposed definition of PHC, we chose to conduct in extension to this study a qualitative study. The objective was, with the contribution of the quantitative study to try and materialize an operational version of the PHC definition.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Database of healthcare workers responses.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file. (138.3KB, xlsx)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.International Conference on Primary Health Care (‎1978: Alma-Ata, USSR)‎, World Health Organization & United Nations Children’s Fund (‎UNICEF)‎. (‎1978)‎. Primary health care: report of the International Conference on Primary Health Care, Alma-Ata, USSR, 6–12 September 1978 / jointly sponsored by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children’s Fund. World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Organization WH, Fund (UNICEF) UNC. A vision for primary health care in the 21st century: towards universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals. World Health Organization; 2018. p. 46 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Starfield B. Is primary care essential? The Lancet. 1994;344: 1129–1133. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)90634-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Starfield B, Shi L, Macinko J. Contribution of primary care to health systems and health. Milbank Q. 2005;83: 457–502. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2005.00409.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bourgueil Y, Marek A, Mousquès J. Trois modèles types d’organisation des soins primaires en Europe, au Canada, en Australie et en Nouvelle-Zélande. avr 2009;(141). Disponible sur: https://www.irdes.fr/Publications/Qes/Qes141.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zerbib Yves, Cartier T., Mercier A., De Pouvourville N, Huas C., et al. Constats sur l’organisation des soins primaires en France. Exercer, 2012, pp.65–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Journal officiel de la République Française [Official journal of French republic]. Loi n° 2016–41 du 26 janvier 2016 de modernisation de notre système de santé—Article 64. 2016‑41 janv 27, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Journal officiel de la République Française [Official journal of French republic]. Loi n°2009–879 du 21 juillet 2009 portant réforme de l’hôpital et relative aux patients, à la santé et aux territoires. 2009‑879 juill 22, 2009.
  • 9.Journal officiel de la République Française [Official journal of French republic]. Loi n°2019–774 du 24 juillet 2019 relative à l’organisation et à la transformation du système de santé. 2019‑774 juill 24, 2019.
  • 10.Gysin S, Sottas B, Odermatt M, Essig S. Advanced practice nurses’ and general practitioners’ first experiences with introducing the advanced practice nurse role to Swiss primary care: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20: 163. doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-1055-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Torrens C, Campbell P, Hoskins G, Strachan H, Wells M, Cunningham M, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the advanced nurse practitioner role in primary care settings: A scoping review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2020;104: 103443. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Piraux A, Cavillon M, Ramond-Roquin A, Faure S. Assessment of Satisfaction with Pharmacist-Administered COVID-19 Vaccinations in France: PharmaCoVax. Vaccines (Basel). 2022;10. doi: 10.3390/vaccines10030440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Dumontet M, Buchmueller T, Dourgnon P, Jusot F, Wittwer J. Gatekeeping and the utilization of physician services in France: Evidence on the Médecin traitant reform. Health Policy. 2017;121: 675–682. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.04.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ehrlich C, Kendall E, Muenchberger H, Armstrong K. Coordinated care: what does that really mean? Health Soc Care Community. 2009;17: 619–627. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2009.00863.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Reeves S, Xyrichis A, Zwarenstein M. Teamwork, collaboration, coordination, and networking: Why we need to distinguish between different types of interprofessional practice. J Interprof Care. 2018;32: 1–3. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2017.1400150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.A culture of caring: the essence of healthcare interprofessional collaboration. England; 2020. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2019.1641476 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Reeves S, Pelone F, Harrison R, Goldman J, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;6: CD000072. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Nguyen BPharm Hons J, Hunter BMed MScPH PhD J, Smith Ba Hons PhD L, Harnett BHSc MHSc PhD Grad Cert Educational Studies JE. Can We All Speak the Same “Language” for Our Patients’ Sake? Feedback on Interprofessional Communication and Related Resources. Glob Adv Health Med. 2021;10: 2164956121992338. doi: 10.1177/2164956121992338 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bachmann LM, Mühleisen A, Bock A, ter Riet G, Held U, Kessels AG. Vignette studies of medical choice and judgement to study caregivers’ medical decision behaviour: systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2008;8: 50. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-50 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000;283: 1715–1722. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.13.1715 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.World Health Organization. Declaration of Astana. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available: https://www.who.int/primary-health/conference-phc/declaration. Accessed: 08 January 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Supper I, Catala O, Lustman M, Chemla C, Bourgueil Y, Letrilliart L. Interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: a review of facilitators and barriers perceived by involved actors. J Public Health (Oxf). 2015;37: 716–727. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdu102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Neuwelt P, Matheson D, Arroll B, Dowell A, Winnard D, Crampton P, et al. Putting population health into practice through primary health care. N Z Med J. 2009;122: 98–104. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Saint-Pierre C, Herskovic V, Sepúlveda M. Multidisciplinary collaboration in primary care: a systematic review. Fam Pract. 2018;35: 132–141. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmx085 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gaucher L, Dupont C, Gautier S, Baumann S, Rousseau A. The challenge of care coordination by midwives during the COVID-19 pandemic: a national descriptive survey. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2022;22: 437. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04772-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Chevreul K, Berg Brigham K, Durand-Zaleski I, Hernandez-Quevedo C. France: Health System Review. Health Syst Transit. 2015;17: 1–218, xvii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dinsdale E, Hannigan A, O’Connor R, O’Doherty J, Glynn L, Casey M, et al. Communication between primary and secondary care: deficits and danger. Fam Pract. 2020;37: 63–68. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmz037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Vermeir P, Vandijck D, Degroote S, Ommeslag D, Van De Putte M, Heytens S, et al. Mutual perception of communication between general practitioners and hospital-based specialists. Acta Clin Belg. 2015;70: 350–356. doi: 10.1179/2295333715Y.0000000032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Berendsen AJ, Benneker WHGM, Schuling J, Rijkers-Koorn N, Slaets JPJ, Meyboom-de Jong B. Collaboration with general practitioners: preferences of medical specialists—a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2006;6: 155. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-155 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Miwako Hosoda

13 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-28991Proposal for a shared definition of « primary healthcare » by health professionals: a national cross-sectional surveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Prade

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.

==============================

This paper surveys health professionals to determine what definitions of primary health care they share or do not share. This is a valuable study to see how primary health care, which has received a lot of attention after the Alma Ata Declaration, is perceived by health professionals.

However, more needs to be written about the background of why this study was undertaken. If there is a reality that there is a lack of common understanding among health professionals in promoting primary health care, please write specifically about it as a basis for raising the issue.

In addition, Discussion and Conclusion should be written in more depth. Please analyze the significance of having a common definition, the problems caused by the lack of a shared definition, and what negative impact this may have on healthcare. Also, please provide specifics on what having a common definition of primary health care would entail.

We look forward to receiving the manuscript with further revisions.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 27 2023 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,

Miwako Hosoda

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 note that the supplementary file "Database.xlsx" appears to contain potentially identifying information (i.e. email addresses). These should be anonymised as this information may breach patient confidentiality and these details should not be included. 3. 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. 4. 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.​

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.

PLoS One. 2023 Mar 1;18(3):e0281882. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281882.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

26 Jan 2023

Dear Editor,

We thank you for the response received on December 14, concerning our manuscript entitled “Proposal for a shared definition of « primary healthcare » by health professionals: a national cross-sectional survey” by Michel Prade, Anne Rousseau, Olivier Saint-Lary, Sophie Baumann, Louise Devillers, Arnaud Courtin, Sylvain Gautier, informing us you would be willing to give further consideration to a revised version.

The authors are very grateful to the Editor for her constructive help. We think the paper has been much improved. Our revised version has taken into account all of the points raised, as detailed below and in the rebutal letter.

Comments to the Author :

However, more needs to be written about the background of why this study was undertaken. If there is a reality that there is a lack of common understanding among health professionals in promoting primary health care, please write specifically about it as a basis for raising the issue.

Author’s response to comment:

We thank the editor for this suggestion, which encourages us to better present the context of why our study was undertaken. We have added examples of redistribution or redefinition of PHC worker’s prerogatives in the introduction section, page 3 and 4, beginning line 84 of the manuscript. These changes could lead to a lack of common understanding among health professionals. “These reforms have upset the representations of some and others and modified professional positions. They have redistributed the roles of many professionals. Advanced practice nurses are a significant example, during these successive reforms they gained more autonomy in their practice and are becoming a significant part of PHC [10,11]. Pharmacists are another profession concerned by these redistributions of roles. In France, they are now able to vaccinate against the flu and were able to vaccinate during the COVID-19 pandemic [12]. Other professionals could perceive a shift in what they were expected to do. In France, general practitioners are strongly associated with the gatekeeping of the primary healthcare sector [13]. Recent reforms have emphasized this prerogative, the general practitioner having a central role in coordination of patient healthcare and orientation in the health system. Those changes institute a blur in the nature and prerogatives of PHC professionals and raise questions about a revision of the definition of primary healthcare.”

We also added precisions about why a lack of common understanding could lead to issues in the organization of PHC and ultimately patient care in the Introduction section, line 101 as follow: “To better communicate and organize the health system on a territorial level, it is significant for the professionals to understand that they belong to a sector of this system. This is especially needed in a moving, subject to reforms system. It is important to comprehend the other professional’s prerogatives and abilities to develop teamwork and interprofessional collaboration [15]. Interprofessional collaboration is essential to provide efficient and quality patient care [16,17]. In order to develop the collaboration between health care actors, they have to “speak the same language” [18].”

Comments to the Author :

In addition, Discussion and Conclusion should be written in more depth. Please analyze the significance of having a common definition, the problems caused by the lack of a shared definition, and what negative impact this may have on healthcare. Also, please provide specifics on what having a common definition of primary health care would entail.

We thank the editor for this comment, giving us a chance to develop our discussion and conclusion. We added in the Discussion section, page 11 and 12 beginning line 279, a more in depth analysis of the significance of having a common definition, what having a common definition would entail and the problems caused by the lack of a shared definition. “Having a shared definition of PHC could lead to a better collaboration, coordination and communication between the different actors of the health system. PHC in particular involves many actors, caregivers or administrative and organizational staff. To better work together, they have to understand each other’s roles and functions. This improved collaboration in PHC has to be based on a common ground, a shared definition where the field of PHC and every actor’s prerogatives are clearly stated. A shared definition of PHC could be a path to promote interprofessional communication and collaboration. In a 2015 publication by Supper et.al, it is said “In the early stages of collaboration, time should be dedicated to communication, training, building shared views and overcoming prejudices, to save time later on” and “The main barriers were the challenges of definition and awareness of one another's roles and competences.”[22]. With an improved collaboration between professionals, studies has shown a positive impact on patient’s health [23,24]. We think a better understanding of the prerogatives of the healthcare workers composing PHC and the boundaries of said system can lead to a better allocation of human and financial resources. On the contrary, a poor understanding of what is PHC could lead to an overlap of functions between different professionals, causing misunderstanding.”

We also added in the Discussion section, page 12 line 293, one of the challenges of having a shared definition of PHC : “While specifying the outlines of PHC and trying to better collaboration between their actors, having a shared definition of PHC can bring challenges. One of them would be to crystallize the partition between primary and secondary care.”

We then developed the Conclusion section, taking into account the suggestions, page 12 L.311 : “A shared definition of PHC can foster interprofessional collaboration and communication between professionals. On a territorial scale, it could help for a better allocation of the resources available. A shared definition also poses challenges. Primary care and its prerogatives being strengthened, the risk is to reinforce the partition between primary and secondary care”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file. (21.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Miwako Hosoda

2 Feb 2023

Proposal for a shared definition of « primary healthcare » by health professionals: a national cross-sectional survey

PONE-D-22-28991R1

Dear Dr. Michael Prade,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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,

Miwako Hosoda

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The revised manuscript showed evidence of a sincere response to my previous comments. Since some modification has been taken, I have decided that this paper is acceptable for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Miwako Hosoda

17 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-28991R1

Proposal for a shared definition of « primary healthcare » by health professionals: a national cross-sectional survey

Dear Dr. Prade:

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

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 plosone@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. Miwako Hosoda

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 Table. Database of healthcare workers responses.

    (XLSX)

    Click here for additional data file. (138.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Click here for additional data file. (21.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES