Comment écrire et publier un article de recherche ?

Une recherche dont les résultats ne sont pas publiés est une recherche perdue. Les résultats ne seront pas indexés dans une base documentaire et ils seront perdus. Faire une recherche clinique dont les résultats ne sont pas diffusés n’est pas éthique. Par diffusé, nous entendons la mise à disposition des résultats pour vos pairs (et le public ?) ou une publication dans une revue. Déposer vos résultats sur des plateformes (ou registres) ou déposer un preprint (manuscrit non évalué par les pairs) permet de les diffuser. Ne pas diffuser ou publier vos résultats est un gaspillage de ressources et un manque de respect des patients. Il s’agit de l’un des énoncés de la déclaration d’Helsinki1 . La meilleure diffusion de vos résultats est assurée par un article dans une revue scientifique. Il a été évalué par des pairs et est indexé dans des bases documentaires, ce qui assure une pérennité. Publier un article sans en faire la promotion, notamment sur les réseaux sociaux, est une erreur. Notre objectif est de proposer des principes pour mieux valoriser les résultats de vos recherches sous forme d’article. Nous proposons trois étapes : préparer la rédaction, écrire l’article et le soumettre à une revue scientifique

General practitioners' views and preferences about quality improvement feedback in preventive care: a cross-sectional study in Switzerland and France.

Feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve the quality of care in primary care settings. As part of a study conducted to explore the quality of preventive care, we investigated general practitioners' (GPs) views on the usefulness of feedback and their preferences regarding how feedback is provided. This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2015 among randomly selected community-based GPs in two regions of Switzerland and France. GPs were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire about how often they provided 12 measures of preventive care: blood pressure, weight and height measurements, screening for dyslipidemia, at-risk drinking (and advice to reduce for at-risk drinkers), smoking (and advice to stop for smokers), colon and prostate cancer, and influenza immunization for patients >65 years and at-risk patients. They were also asked to estimate the usefulness of a feedback regarding their preventive care practice, reason(s) for which a feedback could be useful, and finally, to state which type of feedback they would like to receive. Chi-square tests were used to compare frequencies. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with GPs considering feedback as useful. Five hundred eighteen of 1100 GPs (47.1%) returned the questionnaire. They were predominantly men (62.5%) and most (40.1%) were aged between 55 and 64 years old. Overall, 44.3% stated that a feedback would be useful. Younger GPs and those carrying out more measures of preventive care were more likely to consider feedback useful. The two main reasons for being interested in feedback were to receive knowledge about the study results and to modify or improve practice. The two preferred feedback interventions were a brief report and a report with specific information regarding prevention best practice, whereas less than 1% would like to discuss the results face-to-face with the study investigators. These findings suggest that GPs have preferences regarding the types of feedback they would like to receive. Because the implementation of guidelines is highly related to the acceptance of feedback, we strongly encourage decision makers to take GPs' preferences into account when developing strategies to implement guidelines, in order to improve the quality of primary care

Rates, Delays, and Completeness of General Practitioners' Responses to a Postal Versus Web-Based Survey: A Randomized Trial.

Web-based surveys have become a new and popular method for collecting data, but only a few studies have directly compared postal and Web-based surveys among physicians, and none to our knowledge among general practitioners (GPs). Our aim is to compare two modes of survey delivery (postal and Web-based) in terms of participation rates, response times, and completeness of questionnaires in a study assessing GPs' preventive practices. This randomized study was conducted in Western Switzerland (Geneva and Vaud) and in France (Alsace and Pays de la Loire) in 2015. A random selection of community-based GPs (1000 GPs in Switzerland and 2400 GPs in France) were randomly allocated to receive a questionnaire about preventive care activities either by post (n=700 in Switzerland, n=400 in France) or by email (n=300 in Switzerland, n=2000 in France). Reminder messages were sent once in the postal group and twice in the Web-based group. Any GPs practicing only complementary and alternative medicine were excluded from the study. Among the 3400 contacted GPs, 764 (22.47%, 95% CI 21.07%-23.87%) returned the questionnaire. Compared to the postal group, the participation rate in the Web-based group was more than four times lower (246/2300, 10.70% vs 518/1100, 47.09%, P<.001), but median response time was much shorter (1 day vs 1-3 weeks, P<.001) and the number of GPs having fully completed the questionnaire was almost twice as high (157/246, 63.8% vs 179/518, 34.6%, P<.001). Web-based surveys offer many advantages such as reduced response time, higher completeness of data, and large cost savings, but our findings suggest that postal surveys can be still considered for GP research. The use of mixed-mode approaches is probably a good strategy to increase GPs' participation in surveys while reducing costs

How do general practitioners put preventive care recommendations into practice? A cross-sectional study in Switzerland and France.

We previously identified that general practitioners (GPs) in French-speaking regions of Europe had a variable uptake of common preventive recommendations. In this study, we describe GPs' reports of how they put different preventive recommendations into practice. Cross-sectional study conducted in 2015 in Switzerland and France. 3400 randomly selected GPs were asked to complete a postal (n=1100) or online (n=2300) questionnaire. GPs who exclusively practiced complementary and alternative medicine were not eligible for the study. 764 GPs (response rate: postal 47%, online 11%) returned the questionnaire (428 in Switzerland and 336 in France). We investigated how the GPs performed five preventive practices (screening for dyslipidaemia, colorectal and prostate cancer, identification of hazardous alcohol consumption and brief intervention), examining which age group they selected, the screening frequency, the test they used, whether they favoured shared decision for prostate cancer screening and their definition of hazardous alcohol use. A large variability was observed in the way in which GPs provide these practices. 41% reported screening yearly for cholesterol, starting and stopping at variable ages. 82% did not use any test to identify hazardous drinking. The most common responses for defining hazardous drinking were, for men, ≥21 drinks/week (24%) and ≥4 drinks/occasion for binge drinking (20%), and for women, ≥14 drinks/week (28%) and ≥3 drinks/occasion (21%). Screening for colorectal cancer, mainly with colonoscopy in Switzerland (86%) and stool-based tests in France (93%), was provided every 10 years in Switzerland (65%) and 2 years in France (91%) to patients between 50 years (87%) and 75 years (67%). Prostate cancer screening, usually with shared decision (82%), was provided yearly (62%) to patients between 50 years (74%) and 75-80 years (32%-34%). The large diversity in the way these practices are provided needs to be addressed, as it could be related to some misunderstandingof the current guidelines, to barriers for guideline uptake or, more likely, to the absence of agreement between the various recommendations

Phenotypic Plasticity and Effects of Selection on Cell Division Symmetry in Escherichia coli

Aging has been demonstrated in unicellular organisms and is presumably due to asymmetric distribution of damaged proteins and other components during cell division. Whether the asymmetry-induced aging is inevitable or an adaptive and adaptable response is debated. Although asymmetric division leads to aging and death of some cells, it increases the effective growth rate of the population as shown by theoretical and empirical studies. Mathematical models predict on the other hand, that if the cells divide symmetrically, cellular aging may be delayed or absent, growth rate will be reduced but growth yield will increase at optimum repair rates. Therefore in nutritionally dilute (oligotrophic) environments, where growth yield may be more critical for survival, symmetric division may get selected. These predictions have not been empirically tested so far. We report here that Escherichia coli grown in oligotrophic environments had greater morphological and functional symmetry in cell division. Both phenotypic plasticity and genetic selection appeared to shape cell division time asymmetry but plasticity was lost on prolonged selection. Lineages selected on high nutrient concentration showed greater frequency of presumably old or dead cells. Further, there was a negative correlation between cell division time asymmetry and growth yield but there was no significant correlation between asymmetry and growth rate. The results suggest that cellular aging driven by asymmetric division may not be hardwired but shows substantial plasticity as well as evolvability in response to the nutritional environment